Europe

Dear client, In lieu of our regular weekly report next week, we will hold a webcast on Thursday at 10:00 am ET discussing both tactical and strategic currency considerations. The format will be a short presentation, followed by a Q&A session. We look forward to engaging with you. Kind regards, Chester Ntonifor Vice President, Foreign Exchange Strategy Highlights Go short the Gold/Silver ratio (GSR). Hold a basket of NOK and SEK against a basket of the dollar and euro. Go long sterling. Feature Chart I-1The Dollar And Business Cycles When constructing a basket of high-conviction positions, the starting point is usually the framework used to build the portfolio. Ours is through a three-factor lens. The first lens determines what macroeconomic environment we are operating in. Think of a four-quadrant matrix, with growth on one axis and inflation on the other. Intuitively, the dollar should do best when global growth is decelerating and inflation is falling. The climatic expression of this is a deflationary bust, when all bets are off and the dollar is king. On the other side of the spectrum, the dollar should weaken as global growth rebounds (Chart I-1). The second lens is valuation. Specifically, as the drop in cyclical currencies in a deflationary bust approach a capitulation phase, value begins to put a cushion under deteriorating fundamentals. In our previous work, we showed that foreign exchange value-trading strategies based on PPP are profitable over the long term.1  Finally, technical indicators are our third lens for two reasons. First, they are the most powerful indicators for short-term trades. Second, they act as a bridge between bombed-out valuations and a subsequent improvement in macro fundamentals. For example, a saucer-shaped bottom in a cyclical currency can usually be a prelude to a U-shaped economic recovery. A high-conviction trade is one that ticks all three boxes or is agnostic to the first but has a powerful signal from both the second and third. Using this framework, we suggest two trades this week. Go Short The Gold/Silver Ratio When looking at our four-quadrant matrix, it is clear that the dollar tends to rise during a downturn, and fall early in the cycle. Intra-cycle performance is more nuanced. With both first- and second-quarter GDP likely to contract severely around the world, growth is likely to bounce back later this year if economies stay open. This should, ceteris paribus, lead to a weaker dollar. A bearish view on the dollar can be expressed by being short the GSR. The Gold/Silver ratio (GSR) tends to track the US dollar (Chart I-2), so a bearish view on the dollar can be expressed by being short the GSR. It is well known that most of the time, bullion is inversely correlated to the US dollar, not only due to the numeraire effect but also as competing monetary standards. Given that silver tends to rise and fall more explosively than the price of gold (Chart I-3), it makes sense that the GSR should inversely track the greenback. Part of the reason for silver’s explosive – albeit lagged – response is that the silver market is thinner and more volatile, with open interest in futures about one-third of gold. Chart I-2GSR And The Dollar Chart I-3Silver Has Explosive Rallies The potency of the GSR is in its leading properties, as it provides important information on the battleground between easing financial conditions and a pickup in economic (or manufacturing) activity. The GSR tends to rally ahead of an economic slowdown, then peaks when growth is still weak but financial conditions are easy enough to short-circuit any liquidity trap. Silver fabrication demand benefits from new industries such as solar and a flourishing “cloud” orbit – both of which are capturing the new manufacturing landscape. Not surprisingly, the GSR has led the rise and fall of many ASEAN and Latin American currencies that are at the forefront of manufacturing (Chart I-4). Chart I-4GSR, Latam And Asean Currencies A key assumption in a lower GSR is that the global economy fends off a deeper recession, which would otherwise sustain a high and rising ratio. But even if we are wrong and the dollar remains stronger over the next 12-18 months, the valuation cushion from being short the GSR is outstanding. The ratio broke above major overhead resistance at 100 just as the dollar liquidity crunch was intensifying, and is now staging a V-shaped reversal. Historically, these reversals tend to be quick, powerful, and extremely volatile. Unless gold is entering a new paradigm versus silver, the forces of mean reversion should pull the ratio towards 50 (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Big Downside Potential For GSR The next important technical level for silver is the $18-$20-per-ounce zone. This has acted as a strong overhead resistance since 2015, and has provided strong downside support for silver prior to that. If silver is able to punch through this zone, this will help bridge the gap between silver and gold fundamentals. Globally, the world produces 24,201 tons of silver a year and 3,421 tons of gold. That is a supply ratio of 7:1. Meanwhile, the price ratio between gold and silver is 100:1. This seems like a very wide gap, given that the physical supply of silver is in deficit. Bottom Line: We have been flagging the GSR as a key indicator to watch since last year.2 Our sell-stop on the ratio was finally triggered at 100. Place stops at 110, with an initial target of 75. Go Long Sterling, In Addition To NOK And SEK If the dollar is indeed in a renewed downtrend, the most potent beneficiaries of this move will be NOK and SEK. Our basket of long Scandinavian currencies against both the dollar and the euro has a significant margin of safety, even if we are offside on the dollar trend (Chart I-6). The euro will naturally pop on dollar weakness, but a very liquid beneficiary could also be sterling. Trade negotiations between the UK and EU are clearly breaking down. The worst-case scenario is a no-deal Brexit, in which case the pound could significantly decline. The key question would be by how much? Every time there has been maximum pessimism on the pound driven by Brexit fears, the line in the sand has been 1.20.  The first observation is that each time the odds of a “hard” Brexit have risen significantly, the threshold for cable downside has been 1.20. The first occurrence was the aftermath of the UK referendum in 2016. The second episode was when Prime Minister Boris Johnson was elected with a mandate to take the UK out of the EU (Chart I-7). Intuitively, this suggests that every time there has been maximum pessimism on the pound driven by Brexit fears, the line in the sand has been 1.20. Of course, a pandemic can change this dynamic, as we saw with the drop in cable to 1.15 in March, but this move was not isolated to sterling. Chart I-6SEK And NOK Are Attractive Chart I-7GBP Has Historically Bottomed At 1.2 While a no-deal Brexit is not our base case, it is still instructive to simulate cable downside in the case of  such an event. Given that the last time Britain majorly defected from a union was during the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) crisis in the 1990s, revisiting this episode could be instructive. The episode leading to the collapse of the pound in 1992 has important lessons for today.3 Britain entered the ERM in October of 1990 in an attempt to find a stable nominal anchor. In other words, with high inflation and an overvalued currency, adopting German interest rates was expected to temper inflation and realign the real exchange rate. Fundamental models show the pound as being very cheap. Problems began to surface in June 1992, when the Danes voted no in a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty that included a chapter on the EMU. As doubts towards the progress of a union began to rise, investors started to question where the shadow exchange rate for ERM currencies lay, especially the Italian lira and the Spanish peseta. Britain also massively stepped up its interventions in the foreign exchange market in August of that year, having to borrow excessively to increase reserves. Britain was eventually forced to suspend its membership in the ERM. Herein lies the key differences with today. Support for the euro within member countries is extremely strong. So, while EUR/GBP may have near-term upside, a destabilizing fall in the pound relative to the euro is unlikely. A substantial rise in the EUR/GBP, assuming little euro breakup risk, is a bet on the fact that not only is the pound misaligned versus the German “Deutschemark,” but it is also expensive versus the Italian “Lira” and Spanish “Peseta.” This seems unrealistic. The pound was overvalued as the UK entered the ERM, judging from its real effective exchange rate adjusted for consumer prices. A persistent inflation differential between the UK and Germany had led to significant appreciation in the real rate. That gap is much narrower today (Chart I-8). Moreover, fundamental models show the pound as being very cheap, especially versus the US dollar on both a PPP and productivity basis. During the ERM crisis, most of the adjustment in the pound happened quickly, but a key difference is that it was unanticipated. Foreign exchange markets today are extremely fluid and adjust to expectations quite fast. From its peak, GBP/USD depreciated by 24% by end of October 1992. Peak to trough, cable has fallen by almost 30% today. Given this drop, it is hard to imagine that the probability of a no-deal Brexit is not priced into cable. The real effective exchange rate of the pound is now lower than where it was after the UK exited the ERM in 1992, with a drawdown that has been similar in magnitude (24% in both episodes). In the event a deal is forged, the pound should converge toward the mid-point of its historical real effective exchange rate range, which will pin it at least 15%-20% higher (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Not Much Misalignment In U.K. Prices Today Chart I-9Cable Valuation Reflects Brexit Risk Bottom Line: Go long the pound as a trade but maintain tight stops at 1.20. Our limit sell on EUR/GBP was a whisker from being triggered this week at 0.9. While we will respect this level, long-term investors can start slowly shorting the cross.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, “Introducing An FX Trading Model,” dated April 24, 2020 avaiable at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report,  “On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver,” dated October 11, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 Mathias Zurlinden, “The Vulnerability of Pegged Exchange Rates: The British Pound in the ERM,” Economic Research, Vol. 75, No. 5 (September/October 1993). Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have been mostly negative: Retail sales fell by 16.4% month-on-month in April, following an 8.3% decrease the previous month. The preliminary Markit manufacturing PMI increased from 36.1 to 39.8 in May. The services PMI also improved from 26.7 to 36.9. The NAHB housing market index increased from 30 to 37 in May. This follows a contraction in building permits by 21% month-on-month in April and a 30% month-on-month drop in housing starts. Initial jobless claims kept rising by 2438K for the week ended May 15th. The DXY index fell by 1% this week. The DXY index has been stuck in a narrow trading range between 98.50 and 101, ever since the Fed’s swap liquidity programs were unveiled. This suggests a stalemate between weak global growth and improving financial conditions. Report Links: Cycles And The US Dollar - May 15, 2020 Capitulation? - April 3, 2020 The Dollar Funding Crisis - March 19, 2020 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been negative: GDP contracted by 3.2% year-on-year in Q1. Employment fell by 0.2% quarter-on-quarter in Q1. The seasonally-adjusted trade surplus narrowed to €23.5 billion from €25.6 billion in March. The current account surplus fell from €37.8 billion to €27.4 billion. The ZEW sentiment index improved from 25.2 to 46 in May. The preliminary Markit manufacturing PMI increased from 33.4 to 39.5 in May. The services PMI also ticked up from 12 to 28.7. The euro increased by 1.7% against the US dollar this week. During a recent speech at the Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability Policy Webinar, the ECB member Philip R. Lane reinforced that the ECB will continue to constantly assess the monetary measures and is fully prepared to further adjust its instruments, which might include increasing the size of the PEPP. Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been negative: GDP plunged by 3.4% year-on-year in Q1. Industrial production fell by 5.2% year-on-year in March. Machinery orders fell by 0.7% year-on-year in March, following a 2.4% contraction in February. Exports and imports both fell by 21.9% and 7.2% year-on-year respectively in April. The total trade balance fell from a ¥5.4 billion surplus to a ¥930.4 billion deficit. The preliminary manufacturing PMI fell from 41.9 to 38.4 in May. The Japanese yen fell by 0.9% against the US dollar this week. The Bank of Japan announced on Tuesday that it will hold an emergency policy meeting on Friday, May 22nd, following the bleak GDP data on Monday. Report Links: The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar - February 28, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been negative: The unemployment rate slightly decreased from 4% to 3.9% in March. Average earnings including bonuses grew by 2.4% year-on-year. Headline retail price inflation fell from 2.6% year-on-year to 1.5% year-on-year in April. The Markit manufacturing PMI increased from 32.6 to 40.6 in May. The services PMI also improved from 13.4 to 27.8. The British pound increased by 0.9% against the US dollar this week. This week saw the UK selling its long-term government bonds with negative yield for the first time in history. Moreover, the BoE has also not ruled out the possibility of negative interest rates. Please refer to our front section this week for a more detailed analysis on the pound. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been negative: The Westpac leading index fell by 1.5% month-on-month in April. Retail sales plunged by 17.9% month-on-month in April. The preliminary Commonwealth manufacturing PMI slipped from 44.1 to 42.8 in May, while the services PMI increased from 19.5 to 25.5. The Australian dollar appreciated by 2.6% against the US dollar this week. The RBA minutes released this week noted that the Australian economy had been severely affected by the COVID-19, and most of the contraction was expected to occur in the second quarter of 2020. The current economic contraction is unprecedented in the 60-year history of the Australian economy. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been negative: The Manufacturing PMI fell from 53.2 to 26.1 in April. The services PMI also plunged from 52 to 25.9. PPI output prices increased by 0.1% quarter-on-quarter in Q1, while input prices depreciated by 0.3% quarter-on-quarter. House sales plunged by 78.5% year-on-year in April. The New Zealand dollar appreciated by 3.4% against the US dollar this week, making it the best performing G10 currency. The RBNZ indicated that the recent rate cuts have not been transferred via lower mortgage rates or lower retail rates. They have also expressed concerns about a higher mortgage default rate once the 6-month mortgage repayment deferrals expire. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been negative: Headline consumer prices contracted by 0.2% year-on-year in April, falling into deflationary territory for the first time since 2009. Core inflation fell from 1.6% to 1.2% year-on-year in April. Trade sales contracted by 2.2% month-on-month in March.  Existing home sales plunged by 56.8% month-on-month in April, following a 14.3% decrease in March. The Canadian dollar rose by 1.3% against the US dollar this week. Statistics Canada shows that in April, consumer prices deflation is led by transportation, clothing and footwear, which saw yearly declines of 4.1% and 4.4% respectively. However, consumers paid more for food due to higher demand. Rice, eggs and pork prices rose by 9.2%, 8.8%, and 9% year-on-year respectively in April. In addition, household cleaning products and toilet paper prices also surged in April. Report Links: More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 The Loonie: Upside Versus The Dollar, But Downside At The Crosses Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been negative: Producer and import prices contracted by 4% year-on-year in April, following a 2.7% yearly decrease in March. Total sight deposits continued to rise from CHF 669.1 billion to CHF 673.5 billion last week. The Swiss franc appreciated by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, KOF published a new forecast for Switzerland in May, which now forecasts the economy to rebound gradually once the current lockdown restrictions are eased. However, tax revenues in Switzerland are expected to fall by over CHF 5.5 billion this year and CHF 25 billion over the next years. Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been negative: Exports plunged by 24% year-on-year to NOK 58.8 billion in April. Imports fell by 10.8% year-on-year to NOK 55.5 billion. The trade surplus fell by 78.5% year-on-year to NOK 3.2 billion. The Norwegian krone appreciated by 3.2% against the US dollar this week, fuelled by the recent oil prices recovery. Statistics Norway showed that the recent plunge in exports was mostly led by crude oil, natural gas, and fish exports. Natural gas condensates exports, on the other hand, rose by 44.7% year-on-year in April. That being said, we remain long the Norwegian krone from the valuation perspective. Report Links: A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been negative: Industry capacity fell slightly from 89.4% to 89.2% in Q1. Total number of employees grew by 0.3% year-on-year in Q1, compared with a 0.4% growth the previous quarter. The Swedish krona appreciated by 2.8% against the US dollar this week. In the latest Financial Stability Report released this Wednesday, the Riksbank highlighted that “if the crisis becomes prolonged, the risks to financial stability will increase”. Moreover, the Bank stated that they are ready to contribute by providing the necessary liquidity to help banks maintaining sufficient credit supply. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights German bunds and Swiss bonds are no longer haven assets. The haven assets are the Swiss franc, Japanese yen, and US T-bonds. Gold is less effective as a haven asset. During this year’s coronavirus crash, the gold price fell by -7 percent. As such, our haven asset of choice for a further demand shock would be the 30-year T-bond, whose price rose by 10 percent during the crash. Technology and healthcare are the two sectors most likely to contain haven equities. Fractal trade: long Polish zloty versus euro. German Bunds And Swiss Bonds Are No Longer Haven Assets Chart of the WeekGold Is Tracking The US 30-Year T-Bond Price... But The T-Bond Is The Better Haven Asset European investors have been left defenceless. German bunds and Swiss bonds used to be the safest of haven assets. You used to be able to bet your bottom dollar – or euro or Swiss franc for that matter – that the bond prices would rally during a demand shock. Not in 2020. When the global economy and stock markets collapsed from mid-February through mid-March, the DAX slumped by -39 percent. Yet the German 10-year bund price, rather than rallying, fell by -2 percent, while the Swiss 10-year bond price fell by -4 percent.1  The lower limit to bond yields is around -1 percent. The reason is that German and Swiss bond yields are close to the practical lower limit to yields, which we believe is around -1 percent (Chart I-2). This means that German and Swiss bond prices cannot rise much, though they can theoretically fall a lot. Chart I-2German And Swiss Bond Yields Are Near Their Practical Lower Bound The behaviour of German bunds and Swiss bonds during the current crisis contrasts with previous episodes of market stress when their yields were unconstrained by the -1 percent lower limit. During the heat of the euro debt crisis in 2011, the 10-year bund price rallied by 12 percent. Likewise, during the frenzy of the global financial crisis in 2008, the 10-year bund price rallied by 7 percent (Chart I-3 - Chart I-5). Chart I-3German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2008 Crash Chart I-4German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2011 Crash Chart I-5German And Swiss Bonds Did Not Protect Investors During The 2020 Crash The defencelessness of European investors can also be illustrated via a ‘balanced’ 25:75 portfolio containing the DAX and 10-year German bund. The balanced portfolio theory is that a large weighting to bonds should counterbalance a sharp sell-off in equities, thereby protecting the overall portfolio. The theory worked well… until now. In this year’s coronavirus crisis, the 25:75 DAX/bund portfolio suffered a loss of -13 percent. This is substantially worse than the loss of -2 percent during the euro debt crisis in 2011, and the loss of -7 percent during the global financial crisis in 2008 (Chart I-6 - Chart I-8). Chart I-6A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 7 Percent During The 2008 Crash Chart I-7A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 2 Percent During The 2011 Crash Chart I-8A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 13 Percent During The 2020 Crash What Are The Haven Assets? The lower limit to the policy interest rate – and therefore bond yields – is around -1 percent, because -1 percent counterbalances the storage costs of holding physical cash or other stores of value. If banks passed a deeply negative policy rate to their depositors, the depositors would flee into other stores of value. But if banks did not pass a deeply negative policy rate to their depositors, it would wipe out the banks’ net interest (profit) margin. Either way, a deeply negative policy rate would destroy the banking system. German and Swiss bond prices cannot rise much. German and Swiss bond yields are close to the -1 percent lower limit, meaning that the bond prices are close to their upper limit. Begging the question: what are the haven assets whose prices will rise and protect long-only investors when economic demand slumps? We can think of three. The Swiss franc. The Japanese yen (Chart I-9). US T-bonds. Chart I-9The Swiss Franc And Japanese Yen Are Haven Assets During the coronavirus crash, the 10-year T-bond price rallied by 4 percent while the 30-year T-bond price rallied by 10 percent (Chart I-10). Compared with German bund and Swiss bond yields, US T-bond yields were – and still are – further from the -1 percent lower limit. The good news is that long-dated T-bonds can still protect investors during a demand shock, although be warned that the extent of protection diminishes as yields get closer to the lower limit. Chart I-10Long-Dated US T-Bonds Are Haven Assets What about gold? As gold has a zero yield, it becomes relatively more attractive to own as the yield on other haven assets declines and turns negative. In fact, through the last three years, the gold price has been nothing more than a proxy for the US 30-year T-bond price (Chart of the Week). But gold is an inferior haven asset. During the coronavirus crash, the gold price fell by -7 percent, meaning it did not offer the protection that T-bonds offered. As such, our haven asset of choice for a further demand shock would not be gold. It would be the 30-year T-bond. What Are The Haven Equities? Many investors still use (root mean squared) volatility as a metric of investment risk. There’s a big problem with this. Volatility treats price upside the same as price downside. This is unrealistic. Nobody minds the price upside, they only care about the downside! Hence, a truer metric of risk is the potential for short-term losses versus gains. This truer measure of risk is known as negative asymmetry, or negative skew. In the twilight zone of ultra-low bond yields, bond prices take on this unattractive negative skew. As German bunds and Swiss bonds have taught us this year, bond prices can suffer losses, but they cannot offer gains. This means that bonds become riskier investments relative to other long-duration investments such as equities whose own negative skew remains relatively stable. The upshot is that the prospective return offered by equities must collapse. This is because both components of the equity return – the bond yield plus the equity risk premium – shrink simultaneously.  Equity valuations rise as an exponential function of inverted bond yields. Given that valuation is just the inverse of prospective return, the effect is that equity valuations rise as an exponential function of inverted bond yields. Chart I-11 illustrates this exponentiality by showing that technology equity multiples have tightly tracked the inverted bond yield plotted on a logarithmic scale. Chart I-11Technology Valuations Are Exponentially Sensitive To The (Inverted) Bond Yield Unfortunately, not all equities will benefit from this powerful dynamic. Equities must meet two crucial conditions to justify this exponential re-rating. One condition is that their sales and profits must be relatively resilient in the face of the current coronavirus induced demand shock. And they should not be at risk of a structural discontinuity, as is likely for say airlines, leisure and many other old-fashioned cyclicals. A second condition is that their cashflows must be weighted further into the future, so that their ‘net present values’ are much more geared to the decline in bond yields. Equities that meet these two conditions are likely to benefit the most from the ongoing era of ultra-low bond yields. And the two equity sectors that appear the biggest beneficiaries are technology and healthcare. In the coronavirus world, these two sectors will likely contain the haven equities. Stay structurally overweight technology and healthcare. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is to go long the Polish zloty versus the euro. The profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss are set at 2 percent. Most of the other open trades are flat, though long Australian 30-year bonds versus US 30-year T-bonds and Euro area personal products versus healthcare are comfortably in profit.  The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-12PLN/EUR 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 From February 19 through March 18, 2020. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades 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 Fed/BoE NIRP: It is too soon for either the Fed or Bank of England to consider a move to a negative interest rate policy (NIRP), even with US and UK money markets flirting with pricing in that outcome. Lessons from “NIRP 1.0”: In the countries that did go to negative rates in 2014-16 (Japan, Switzerland, the euro area, Sweden and Denmark), there existed some combination of weak economies, near-0% inflation, anemic credit growth or unwanted currency appreciation. Negative rates were needed to help fight those trends by driving down longer-term bond yields. NIRP 2.0?: Among the major countries without negative rate policies in effect (the US, UK, Canada and Australia), there is no evidence that longer-term borrowing rates need to fall further to boost credit growth, even in the midst of deep recessions. However, additional strength of the stubbornly resilient US dollar could be the deflationary shock that eventually forces the Fed into NIRP. Feature Chart 1NIRP 2.0 Would Trigger A Surge Of Negative Yielding Bonds Within a 20-month window in 2014-16, the central banks of Japan, Sweden, the euro area, Switzerland and Denmark all cut policy interest rates to below 0% - where they remain to this day. Fast forward to 2020, in the midst of a global pandemic and deep worldwide recession that has already forced major developed market central banks to cut rates close to 0%, there is now increased speculation that the negative interest rate policy (NIRP) club might soon get a few new members. The Federal Reserve has been front and center in that group. Fed funds futures contracts had recently priced in slightly negative rates in 2021, despite Fed Chair Jerome Powell repeatedly saying that a sub-0% funds rate was not in the Fed’s plans. The Bank of England (BoE) has also seen markets inch toward pricing in negative rates, although BoE officials have been more open to the idea of negative rates as a viable policy choice. Even the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has suggested that negative rates may be needed there soon. An expansion of the list of countries that have moved to negative rates, beyond the “NIRP 1.0” group of 2014-16, has the potential to drive down global bond yields even further. Already, there is $11 trillion of negative yielding debt within the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate index, representing 20% of the total (Chart 1) If there is a shift to negative rates in the potential “NIRP 2.0” group of major developed economies with policy rates now near 0% – a list that includes the US, the UK, Canada and Australia – then the amount of negative yielding debt worldwide will soar to new highs. An expansion of the list of countries that have moved to negative rates, beyond the “NIRP 1.0” group of 2014-16, has the potential to drive down global bond yields even further. In this report, we take a look at the conditions that led the NIRP 1.0 countries to shift to negative rates in the middle of the last decade, to see if any similarities exist in non-NIRP countries today. We conclude that the conditions are not yet in place for a shift to sub-0% policy rates in the US, the UK, Canada or Australia – all countries where central banks still have other policy tools available to provide stimulus before resorting to negative rates. How Negative Interest Rates Can “Work” To Revive Growth Broadly speaking, central banks around the world have had difficulty meeting their inflation targets since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The main reason for this has been sub-par economic growth, much of which is structural due to aging demographics and weak productivity. Since central bankers must stick to their legislated inflation targeting mandates, they are forced to cut rates when economic growth and inflation are too low. If real economic growth remains weak for structural reasons, then central banks can enter into a cycle of continually cutting rates all the way to zero, or even below zero, in order to try and prevent low inflation from becoming entrenched into longer-term inflation expectations. If growth and inflation continue to languish even after policy rates have reached 0%, then other tools must be used to ease monetary conditions to try and stimulate economies. These typically involve driving down longer-term borrowing rates (bond yields) through dovish forward guidance on future monetary policy, bond purchases through quantitative easing (QE) and, if those don’t work, moving to negative policy interest rates. A nice summary indicator to identify this intertwined dynamic of real economic growth and inflation is to look at the trend growth rate of nominal GDP. Chart 2 shows the policy interest rates three-year annualized trend of nominal GDP growth for the NIRP 1.0 countries, dating back to before the 2008 crisis. Japan stands out as the weakest of the group, with trend nominal growth contracting during and after the 2009 recession, while struggling to reach even +2% since then. The euro area, Sweden and Switzerland all enjoyed +5% nominal growth prior to 2008, before a plunge to the 1-2% range during and after the recession. After that, the three countries had varying degrees of economic success. Between 2016 and 2019, Sweden saw trend nominal growth between 4-5%, while the euro area struggled to achieve even +3% nominal growth and Switzerland maintained a Japan-like pace. Chart 2Fewer Tools Left For NIRP 1.0 Countries To Boost Growth Chart 3NIRP 2.0 Candidates Can Still Expand QE First The European Central Bank (ECB), Swiss National Bank (SNB), the Bank of Japan (BoJ) and Sweden’s Riksbank all cut policy rates aggressively in 2008/09, helping spur a recovery in nominal growth. The central banks had to keep rates lower for longer because of structurally weak growth, leaving far less capacity to ease aggressively in response to the growth downturn a few years later. Eventually, the ECB, SNB, BoJ and Riksbank all went to negative rates between June 2014 and February 2016. The BoJ and SNB, facing persistent headwinds from strengthening currencies, also resorted to aggressive balance sheet expansion to provide additional monetary stimulus – trends that have continued to this day, with both central banks having balance sheets equal to around 120% of GDP. The experience of these four NIRP 1.0 countries showed that the move to negative rates was a process that began in the 2008 financial crisis. Central banks there were unable to raise rates much, if at all, after the recession, leaving little ammunition to fight the varying growth slowdowns suffered between 2012 and 2016. Eventually, rates had to be cut below 0% which, combined with QE, helped generate lower bond yields, weaker currencies and, eventually, a pickup in growth and inflation. Looking at the NIRP 2.0 candidate countries, nominal GDP growth has also struggled since the financial crisis, unable to stay much above 3-4% in the US, Canada and the UK. Only Australia has seen trend growth reach peaks closer to 5-6% (Chart 3). The Fed, BoE, Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and Bank of Canada (BoC) all also cut rates aggressively in 2008/09, with the Fed and BoE doing QE buying of domestic bonds. Rates were left at low levels after the crisis in the US and UK, with only the RBA and, to a lesser extent, the BoC hiking rates after the recession ended. When growth slowed again in these countries during the 2014-16 period, the RBA and BoC did lower policy rates, but negative rates were avoided by all four central banks. Today, nominal growth rates have collapsed because of the COVID-19 lockdowns that have shuttered much of the world economy. Central banks that have had any remaining capacity to cut policy rates back to 0% have done so, yet this recession has already become so deep that additional declines in rates may be necessary to stabilize unemployment and inflation. The experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries shows that negative rates can also be effective in boosting growth – especially in countries suffering unwanted currency strength. One way to see the problem that monetary policymakers are now facing is by looking at Taylor Rule estimates of appropriate interest rate levels (Charts 4 and 5). Given the rapid surge in global unemployment rates to levels that, in some cases, have not been seen since the Great Depression (Chart 6), alongside decelerating inflation, Taylor Rule implied policy rates are now deeply negative in the US (-5.6%), Canada (-2.9%) and euro area (-1.7%).1 Taylor Rules show that moderately negative rates are also needed in Sweden (-0.5%), Switzerland (-0.2%) and Japan (-0.2%). Only in Australia (+1.3%) and the UK (+0.3%) is the Taylor Rule indicating that negative rates are not currently required. Chart 4Taylor Rule Says More Rate Cuts Needed Here … Chart 5… But Rates Are Appropriate Here Chart 6The Main Reason Why Taylor Rule Implied Policy Rates Have Plunged Among the potential NIRP 2.0 candidates, the negative rate option has been avoided and aggressive QE balance sheet expansion has been pursued by all of them – including the BoC and RBA who avoided asset purchase programs in 2008/09. Balance sheet expansion can be an adequate substitute for policy interest rate cuts by helping drive down longer-term bond yields and borrowing rates, which helps spur credit demand and, eventually, economic growth. Yet the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries shows that negative rates can also be effective in boosting growth – especially in countries suffering unwanted currency strength. How negative rates worked for the NIRP 1.0 countries For the ECB (Chart 7), BoJ (Chart 8), Riksbank (Chart 9) and SNB, the path from negative policy rates in 2014-16 to, eventually, faster economic growth and inflation followed a similar process: Chart 7The Euro Area's Negative Rates Experience Chart 8Japan's Negative Rates Experience Chart 9Sweden's Negative Rates Experience Moving to negative policy rates resulted in a sharp decline in nominal government bond yields The fall in yields helped trigger currency depreciation Nominal yields fell faster than inflation expectations, allowing real bond yields to turn negative Credit growth eventually began to pick up in response to the decline in real borrowing costs Inflation bottomed out and started to move higher. In Japan, the euro area and Sweden, this process played out fairly rapidly with credit growth and inflation bottoming within 6-12 months of the move to negative rates. Only in Switzerland (Chart 10), where the SNB gave up on currency intervention in January 2015, was the process delayed, as the surge in the currency triggered a move into deeper deflation and higher real bond yields. It took a little more than a year for the deflationary impact of the franc’s surge to fade, allowing real bond yields to decline and credit growth and inflation to bottom out and recover. The implication is clear – negative rates are good for real assets, but troublesome for banks.  Of course, we are talking about the pure economic effect of negative rates as a monetary policy tool. There are side effects of having negative nominal interest rates and deeply negative real bond yields, like surging asset values (especially for real assets like housing). Bank profitability is also negatively impacted by the sharp fall in longer-term bond yields that hurts net interest margins, even with higher lending volumes and reduced non-performing loans. Chart 10Switzerland's Negative Rates Experience Chart 11Negative Rates Are Good For Real Assets This can be seen in Charts 11 & 12, which compare the performance of real house prices and bank equities (relative to the domestic equity market) in the years leading up to, and following, the move to negative rates in 2014-16 for the NIRP 1.0 countries. The implication is clear – negative rates are good for real assets, but troublesome for banks. Chart 12Negative Rates Are Bad For Bank Stocks Nonetheless, the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries suggests that the potential NIRP 2.0 countries could see similar benefits on growth and inflation – but not before other policy options are exhausted first. Bottom Line: In the countries that did go to negative rates in 2014-16 (Japan, Switzerland, the euro area, Sweden and Denmark), there existed some combination of weak economies, near-0% inflation, anemic credit growth or unwanted currency appreciation. Negative rates were needed to help fight those trends by driving down longer-term bond yields and helping spur credit growth and, eventually, some inflation. Depreciating currencies had a big role to play in generating those outcomes. Negative Rates Are Not Necessary (Yet) In The NIRP 2.0 Countries As discussed earlier, the sharp surge in unemployment because of the COVID-19 global recession means that negative interest rates may now be “appropriate” in the US and Canada, based on Taylor Rules. Negative rates are not needed in the UK and Australia, however, although policy rates need to stay very low in both countries. A similar divergence can be seen in inflation. Headline CPI inflation rates were already under severe downward pressure from the recent collapse in oil prices. The surge in spare economic capacity opened up by the current recession can only exacerbate the disinflation trend. However, the drop in inflation has been more acute in the US and Canada relative to the UK and Australia, suggesting a greater need for the Fed and BoC to be even more stimulative than the BoE or RBA (Chart 13). A renewed breakout of the currency to new cyclical highs could be the deflationary signal that triggers the Fed into an even more aggressive policy response. There is one area where the Fed stands alone in this group. The relentless strength of the US dollar, even as the Fed’s rate cuts have taken much of the attractive carry out of the greenback, hurts US export competitiveness in a demand-deficient recessionary global economy. The strong dollar also acts as a dampening influence on US inflation. A renewed breakout of the currency to new cyclical highs could be the deflationary signal that triggers the Fed into an even more aggressive policy response (Chart 14). This would mirror the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries prior to the move to negative rates, where unwanted currency strength crippled both economic growth and inflation. Chart 13The Threat Of Deflation Could Trigger NIRP Chart 14Could More USD Strength Drag The Fed Into NIRP? For now, the Fed has many other policy options open before negative rates would be seriously considered. The reach of its QE programs could be expanded even further, even including equity purchases. The existing bond QE could be combined with a specific yield target (i.e. yield curve control) for shorter-maturity US Treasuries, helping anchor US yields at low levels for longer. Summing it all up, we do not see the need for any of the NIRP 2.0 candidates to move to negative rates anytime soon. The need for such extreme policies is not yet necessary, though, both in the US and the other NIRP 2.0 candidate countries. Bank lending is expanding at a double-digit pace in the US, and still at a decent 5-7% pace in the UK, Canada and Australia, even in the midst of a sharp recession (Chart 15). This may only be due to the numerous loan guarantees provided by governments as part of fiscal stimulus responses, or it may be related to companies running down credit lines to maintain liquidity. The experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries, though, suggests that credit growth must be far weaker than this to require negative policy rates to push down longer-term borrowing costs. Chart 15These Already Look Very "NIRP-ish" Chart 16Too Soon For Global NIRP, Maintain Neutral Global Duration Exposure Summing it all up, we do not see the need for any of the NIRP 2.0 candidates to move to negative rates anytime soon. In terms of investment implications, we continue to recommend an overall neutral stance on global duration exposure, as we see little immediate impetus for yields to move lower because of reduced expectations of future interest rates or inflation (Chart 16). We will continue to watch currency levels and credit growth as a sign that policymakers may need to shift their tone in the coming months. Bottom Line: Among the major countries without negative rate policies in effect (the US, UK, Canada and Australia), there is no evidence that longer-term borrowing rates need to fall further to boost credit growth, even in the midst of deep recessions. However, additional strength of the stubbornly resilient US dollar could be the deflationary shock that eventually forces the Fed into NIRP.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Footnotes 1 Our specification of the Taylor Rule uses unemployment rates relative to full employment (NAIRU) levels as the measure of spare capacity in the economies. For the neutral real interest rate, we use the New York Fed’s estimate of r-star for the US, Canada, the euro area and the UK; while using the OECD’s estimate of potential GDP growth as the neutral real rate measure for countries where we have no r-star estimate (Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and Australia).

Highlights Global stimulus efforts are sufficient thus far, but more will need to be done, especially by Europe and emerging markets. Hiccups will not be well-received by financial markets. The net public wealth of countries helps put debt constraints into perspective in a world of zero and negative interest rates. Insufficient fiscal policy is a bigger risk for Europe in the near term than any Germany-mandated withdrawal of ECB quantitative easing. European states remain locked in a geopolitical predicament that prevents them from abandoning each other despite serious differences over fiscal policy, which will persist. We are tactically long defensive plays and safe havens. Stay long JPY-EUR. Feature This week we focus on two questions: Will global stimulus be enough to fill the gap in demand? And will Germany impose a hard limit on European stimulus efforts? Our answers are yes to the first and no to the second. It is impossible for governments to replace private activity indefinitely, but the resumption of private activity is inevitable one way or another. Governments are continuing to provide massive fiscal and monetary support. The near term is cloudy, however, due to the mismatch between uncertain economic reopening and increasing impediments to new stimulus. Weak spots in the global fiscal stimulus efforts arise in Europe and emerging markets excluding China. Europe, at least, is a temporary catch – as Germany has no choice but to help the rest of the EU prop up aggregate demand. But fiscal policy is a greater near-term risk to peripheral European assets than any cessation of monetary support from the ECB. Will Global Stimulus Be Enough? Yes, Eventually Chart 1 shows the latest update of our global fiscal stimulus chart comparing the size of today’s stimulus to the 2008-10 period. Countries that make up 92% of global GDP are providing about 8% of global GDP in fiscal stimulus. Full calculations can be found in the Appendix. Chart 1US Still Leads In Fiscal Stimulus The chief difference between our calculation and that of others is that we include government loans while excluding government loan guarantees. If a government gives a loan to a business or household, funds are transferred to the receiver’s deposits and can be spent to make necessary purchases or pay fixed costs. A loan guarantee, by contrast, is helpful but does not involve a transfer of funds. Our colleague Jonathan LaBerge, has recently written a Special Report analyzing the size of global fiscal stimulus. He provides an alternative calculation in Chart 2, which focuses on “above the line” measures, i.e. only measures affecting government revenues and expenditures. Government loans, guarantees, and other “below the line” measures are left aside in this conservative definition of stimulus. Chart 2Japan Leads In IMF “Above The Line” Account Of Stimulus Chart 3 shows the discrepancies between Jonathan’s version and our own – they are not very large. The major differences are Japan, China, Germany, Italy, and South Africa. Of these only Germany, Japan, and China are significant.1 Chart 3Geopolitical Strategy Estimates Accord Less Stimulus To Japan, More To Germany And China, Than IMF Does In Japan’s case, we include the stimulus measures that Japan passed at the end of 2019 because even though they were not passed in response to the pandemic, they will take affect at the same time as those that were. We do not include private sector complements to government action, which Japan includes in its account, since private responses are hard to predict and we do not include them for other countries. In China’s case, official estimates underrate the easing of credit policy. Credit is a quasi-fiscal function in China since the Communist Party controls the banks. With a large credit expansion the overall stimulus impact will be larger than expected, as long as borrowers still want to borrow. Data thus far this year suggests that they do, if only to cover expenses and debt payments. Our assessment that China’s stimulus will reach about 10% of GDP follows BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy. The UK and especially Italy, Spain, and France are falling short in their stimulus efforts … Is global stimulus “enough” to plug the gap in demand? Chart 4 shows our colleague Jonathan’s narrower definition of stimulus compared with estimates of the drop in demand from social lockdowns and spillover effects. It assumes a fiscal multiplier of 1.1. The result suggests that the US, China, and Australia are clearly doing enough; Germany, Japan, and Canada are arguably doing enough; other countries including Italy, France, and Spain will likely have to do more. Chart 4Which Countries Have Plugged The Gap In Demand So Far? The latest news confirms this assessment. The US Congress is negotiating another phase of stimulus that will provide a second round of direct payments to households, a third infusion of small business loans, and a large bailout of state and local governments. The current total is $2 trillion, and so far this year these totals are only revised upward. This tendency stems from the political setup: Trump needs to stimulate for the election, GOP senators’ fates ultimately hinge on Trump, while the House Democrats cannot withhold stimulus merely to undermine the Republicans. Similarly, there can be little doubt that China and Japan will provide more stimulus to maintain full employment – their different political systems have always demanded it. We are more concerned about Europe. The UK and especially Italy, Spain, and France are falling short in their stimulus efforts, with the last three ranging from 2%-4% of GDP, according to Chart 4 above. They will add more stimulus, but might they still fall short of what is needed? Assuming that the ECB will provide adequate liquidity, and that low bond yields for a long time will enable debts to be serviced, these countries can service their debts for some time. But what then is the constraint? From a long-term point of view, the UK and peripheral European nations have relatively fewer national assets to weigh against their well-known liabilities. They are closer to their constraints in issuing debt, even if those constraints are nearly impossible to establish and years away from being hit. This is apparent from the IMF’s data series on net public wealth, i.e. total public sector assets and liabilities (Chart 5A). These data, from 2016, are a bit stale, but they are still useful because they take account of assets like natural resources, real estate, state-owned companies, and pension plans that retain value over the long run. It does no good to refer to the large debt loads of countries without considering the vast holdings that they command. By the same token, at some point the debt loads look formidable even relative to these huge realms. Chart 5ANet Public Wealth: A Fuller Picture Of The Debt Story These data tend to underrate the sustainability of developed markets, which are highly indebted but have reserve currencies, safe haven status, and large, liquid credit markets. They overrate the sustainability of emerging markets, with large resource wealth and low-debt, but vulnerable currencies and credit markets. This is not only true for emerging markets with the most negative net worth, like Brazil, or with unsustainable fiscal policies, like Turkey and South Africa. China would look a lot worse in net public wealth, if this could be calculated, than it does on the general government ledger (Chart 5B), due to the liabilities of its state-owned enterprises and local governments. It would look more like the US or Japan in net public wealth – yet without a reserve currency. Chart 5BNet Government Debt: Flatters EM, Not DM Nevertheless the European states have a problem that the other developed markets do not have: the Euro Area’s “constitutional” order is still unsettled. Questions are continually arising about whether countries’ liabilities are backstopped by a single currency authority and the entire assets of the Euro Area. These questions will tend to be settled in favor of European integration. But treaty battles in the context of upcoming elections – in the Netherlands, Germany, France, and likely Italy and Spain – will provide persistent volatility. Bottom Line: Fiscal stimulus passed thus far is only “sufficient” in a few economies; it is insufficient in southern Europe and emerging markets. Uncertainty about the pandemic, and the pace of economic reopening and normalization, combined with any hiccups in providing adequate stimulus will create near-term volatility. Will Germany Halt Quantitative Easing? No, Not Ultimately The questions about Europe highlighted above have come to the fore with the reemergence of the “German question,” which in today’s context means Germany’s and northern Europe’s willingness to conduct fiscal policy to help rebalance the Euro Area and monetary policy to ease conditions for heavily indebted, low productivity southern Europe. We have little doubt that Germany will provide more than its current 10.3% of GDP fiscal stimulus given that it has explicitly stated that state lender KfW has no limit on the amount of loans it can provide to small businesses. This accounts for the difference between our fiscal stimulus estimate and the IMF’s, but the fullest count, including “below the line” measures, would amount to nearly 35% of GDP. A sea change in the German attitude toward fiscal policy has occurred, which we have tracked in reports over the years. This shift gives permission for other European states to loosen their belts as well. We also have little doubt that German leaders will ultimately accept the ECB’s need to take desperate measures to backstop the European financial system: The “dirty little secret” of the Euro Area is that debt is already mutualized through the Target 2 banking imbalance, worth 1.5 trillion euros (Chart 6). As our Chief European Investment Strategist Dhaval Joshi has argued, Germany, as the largest shareholder in the ECB, holds a large quantity of Italian bonds, and Italians have deposited the proceeds of these bond purchases in German banks. All of this is denominated in euros. If Italy redenominates into lira, it can make bond payments in lira and the ECB and Germany will suffer capital losses. Germany would then face Italians withdrawing their deposits from German banks that would still be denominated in euros (or the deutschmark). The cause of this predicament is the ECB’s quantitative easing program (Chart 7). Chart 6Europe’s Gordian Knot Thus Chancellor Angela Merkel’s shift in tone to become more supportive of joint debt issuance belies the fact that European debt is already mutualized through the Gordian knot of Target2 imbalances. This is a politically unpalatable reality for Germans, but they generally accept it because it is in Germany’s national interest to maintain the monetary union and broader European integration. Chart 7Quantitative Easing Puts Germans On Hook For Italy However, the market may need reassurances about “the German question” from time to time, as EU institutional evolution is ongoing. Financial markets did not sell off on the German court’s ruling on May 5, which ostensibly gave the Bundesbank three months before withdrawing from the ECB’s quantitative easing program. Since the sovereign debt crisis, investors have come to recognize that there is more undergirding European integration than mere German preference. Namely, geopolitics – which we have outlined many times, originally in a 2011 Special Report. European nations cannot compete globally without banding together, and Germany is not powerful enough to go it alone. Still, there will be more consequences from this week’s ruling. At issue is the budgetary sovereignty of the European member states as well as Article 123 of the Treaty of Europe, which holds that neither the ECB nor the national central banks of member states can directly purchase public debts. The latter is a prohibition on the monetary financing of deficits. It became controversial in the wake of Mario Draghi’s 2012 declaration that the ECB would do “whatever it takes” to preserve the euro and the ECB’s 2015 Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) quantitative easing program, which the European Court of Justice deemed legal on December 11, 2018. The controversy is now implicitly shifting to the new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program. The other principle concerned is that of “proportionality,” which requires that EU entities not take actions beyond what is necessary to achieve treaty objectives. If the ECB acted without regard to the limits of its mandate, the fiscal supremacy of the states, and the broader economic and fiscal consequences of QE, then its actions would violate the principle of proportionality and would require adjustment by EU authorities or non-participation from member state authorities. The German court did not attempt to overrule or invalidate the European court’s decision in favor of QE, or QE as a whole. Rather, it held that this ruling was not “comprehensible,” hence requiring an independent German ruling, and that the larger question of whether QE violates the prohibition against debt monetization is “not ascertainable.” The reason is that the ECB did not explain its actions adequately and the European Court of Justice did not demand an explanation. Presumably once this is done more decisive determinations can be made. Essentially the German court is demanding “documentation” by the ECB Governing Council that it weighed its monetary decisions against larger economic and fiscal consequences. So will the Bundesbank withdraw from the ECB’s QE operations in three months? Highly unlikely! The ECB, whether directly or indirectly, will provide an assessment of the proportionality of its actions to the Bundesbank and the German court will probably conclude, with limitations, that the ECB’s actions were largely within its mandate. If not, however, markets will plunge. Then the Bundestag or the Bundesbank will have to intervene to ensure that Germany does not in fact withdraw support from the ECB. European nations cannot compete globally without banding together, and Germany is not powerful enough to go it alone. How can we be sure? German opinion. Chancellor Merkel and her ruling Christian Democrats have not suffered this year so far from launching a wartime fiscal expansion and backing the ECB and EU institutions in their emergency actions. On the contrary, they have received one of the biggest bounces in popular opinion polls of any western leaders over the course of the global pandemic. While the bounce will deflate once the acute crisis subsides, this polling signals more than the average rally around the flag (Chart 8). Merkel’s approval rating started to rise when her party embraced more expansive fiscal policy in late 2019 in reaction to malaise revealed in the 2017 election. Germany’s handling of today’s crisis, both the pandemic and the expansive fiscal policy, has put the ruling party in the lead for the 2021 elections (Chart 9). Chart 8Germans See Popular Opinion ‘Bounce’ Amid COVID Chart 9Merkel's CDU Revives Amid Global Crisis Chart 10Germans Support Euro, But Lean On ECB Moreover Germans are enthusiastically in support of the euro and the EU relative to their peers – which makes sense because Germany has been the greatest beneficiary of European integration (Chart 10). The ECB, by contrast, does not have strong support – and is losing altitude. But a crisis provoked by the court and centered on the ECB would quickly become a crisis about the euro and European project as a whole. Opinion has broken in this direction despite Merkel’s and Germany’s many compromises over the years. Remember that Merkel’s capitulation to the Mediterranean states on the European Council in June 2011, which paved the way for Draghi’s famous dictum, was initially seen as a failure by her to defend German interests. Merkel and her party have also recovered from the hit they took when she insisted that Germany take in a huge influx of Syrian refugees in 2015. German popular opinion is relevant when discussing the judicial system and rule of law. No court can ignore popular opinion entirely, no matter how independent and austere, because every court ultimately needs public opinion to maintain its credibility. The European Court’s decision is final, as long as Germany remains committed to the EU. Yet German sovereignty still gives German institutions a say. If the German court persists in attempting to block Bundesbank participation in QE, the result will be a bond market riot that pushes up peripheral debt funding costs. This would eventually risk forcing peripheral states out of the Euro Area, which is against German interests. It is very unlikely things will go so far. Rather, the court will back down after receiving due attention and having its legitimate concerns addressed. The imperatives of European integration are as powerful today as they were in 2011. True, other court challenges will open up against the ECB, particularly the PEPP. But bear in mind that it will be even easier to show that ECB actions are proportional – that broader economic consequences have been weighed – in the case of the pandemic relief emergency than with respect to PSPP prior to COVID. Today it is households and small businesses that need protection from an act of God, not banks and bureaucracies that need protection from the consequences of their excesses. As for the size and duration of QE, the court will try to force some limitations to be acknowledged given the risk to fiscal sovereignty. In this sense, the ECB faces a new constraint, albeit one that we doubt will prove relevant in the near term. Ultimately, the consequence of imposing some limits on central bank policy is to restore authority to member state budgets and European fiscal coordination. In the short term, emergency provision can be provided via the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), whose lending conditions can be relaxed, and by the ECB’s Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT), which can buy bonds amid a market riot. But beyond the immediate crisis the clash over fiscal policy will persist because at some point countries will have to climb down from their extraordinary stimulus and the attempt to restore limits will be contentious. Germany has already made a huge shift in a more fiscally accommodative direction. Italy, Spain, and France are currently not providing enough, but they will add more. Future governments might demand more than even today’s more dovish Germany is willing to accept. Down the road, if these states do not provide more stimulus, then their recoveries will be weaker and political malaise will get worse. An anti-establishment outcome is already likely in Italy in the coming year or two, due to the ability of the League to capitalize on post-COVID voter anger. The big question after that is France in 2022. Macron’s approval rating is holding up, we expect him to win, but his bounce amid the pandemic is not remarkable. From our point of view the peripheral states have a license to spend, so spend they will. But then fiscal conflicts will revive later. Bottom Line: The German constitutional court is not going to try to force the Bundesbank to withdraw from QE, but it is attempting to lay a foundation for the imposition of at least some limits on this policy. The risk to European assets in the short run is not on the monetary side but the fiscal side. Over the long run, the “German question” will never be settled. But the imperatives of European integration are as powerful today as they were in 2011. Each new crisis exposes the weakness of the peripheral states, their need for European institutions. It also exposes Germany’s need to accommodate them when they form a united front. Investment Takeaways Financial markets have no clarity on economic reopening in the face of the virus or how governments will respond to resurgent outbreaks or a second wave in the fall. Taking into consideration the initial shock of the lockdowns plus spillover effects, the cumulative impact to annual GDP rises to 6%-8% by the end of this year for major economies. If another lockdown occurs, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region. This bare risk suggests that global equities face a relapse in the near term. Eventually economic reopening will proceed, as the working age population will demand it. But the path between here and there is rocky and any hiccups in providing stimulus will create even more volatility. Globally, we continue to argue that political and geopolitical risks are rising across the board as the pandemic and recession evolve into a struggle among nations to maintain security amid vulnerabilities and distract from their problems at home. Rumors that China is about to declare an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea are unverified but we have long expected this to occur and tensions and at least some saber-rattling would ensue. We also expect the US to surprise the market with punitive tech and trade measures against China in the near term and to upgrade relations with Taiwan. We remain long JPY-EUR on a tactical 0-3 month horizon. We are converting our tactical long S&P consumer staples, which is up 6%, to a relative trade against the broad market. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Appendix Table 1The Global Fiscal Stimulus Response To COVID-19 Footnotes 1 In the case of Italy, we assume that parliament will pass the latest proposed increase in stimulus from 1.4% to 3.1% of GDP. In the case of South Africa, we expect the IMF to include these measures soon. Germany is discussed below.