Financials

Highlights Banks have an unmatched perspective on the entire economy, … : BCA began by tracking money flows through the banking system to gain advance notice of the direction of markets and the economy. … so we review the five largest banks’ earnings calls every quarter to augment our standard macro analysis: We’re looking for insight into borrower performance, lender willingness, consumer behavior, business sentiment and the condition of the banking system. The biggest banks are bearish on the economic outlook, but bullish on their ability to get through it, … : No management teams are looking for a V-bottom, and their expectations about the duration of the downturn sound a good bit more pessimistic than most investors’. They all expressed confidence in their institutions’ preparedness, however, citing sizable capital buffers and high-quality loan portfolios. … and we agree with their self-assessment: Analysts were skeptical that the banks have adequately reserved for coming loan losses, but we take the more optimistic view that their earnings power will allow them to absorb repeated iterations of reserving while barely scuffing book value. Follow The Money The big banks reported their first quarter earnings last week, and equity investors were decidedly unimpressed, knocking the stocks down 15-19% through Thursday’s close while the S&P 500 was flat. We listen to the calls to hear banks’ observations about households’ and businesses’ financial activity and glean some insight into where lending might be headed. This time we also wanted to use what we heard to inform our investment view on their stocks. We have long been of the view that post-GFC regulatory reforms left the SIFI banks overcapitalized. Even staring down the barrel of the current downturn, it was our sense that the SIFIs had ample capital buffers to withstand a severely adverse scenario, and the sharp de-rating they’ve been subjected to was excessive. With the potential range of credit outcomes so wide, however, it was hard to assess how much their per-share book values might fall, and so we couldn’t state with conviction whether or not the SIFIs’ stocks were as cheap as they appeared to the naked eye. The uncertainty remains, but we heard enough on the calls to conclude that book values are likely to remain resilient. 4Q19 Big Bank Beige Book As a group, the banks offered a pretty grim take on the economy. JPMorgan Chase built its in-house economists’ late-March forecast of a 25% decline in 2Q GDP and an unemployment rate above 10% into its model for calculating its 1Q loan-loss reserve, only to have them revise their forecasts lower, to -40% and 20%, respectively, after the bank closed its books. The rest of the banks, which offered directional GDP and unemployment views instead of point forecasts, uniformly called for weakness well into 2021. The banks were downbeat on the economy, but confident in their ability to manage through it, and not a single one has any intention of cutting its dividend. On the bright side, every bank cited its sizable capital buffer when arguing that it is in a better position than it was in 2008. The banks’ contention that the mix and quality of their loan books makes them safer than they were then didn’t seem to get much traction. The mortgages they hold today were much more carefully underwritten than the ones they held in 2008, but the quality of the banks’ overall loan books won’t be known until the recession has run its course. Many business borrowers are weaker credits that they were when their loans were extended, though the record-low growth in bank lending in the expansion just concluded suggests that the banks committed fewer excesses in this cycle than they normally do (Chart 1). Chart 1An Expansion Without Bank Lending Excesses Businesses drew down their credit lines at a frenzied pace over the last two weeks of March (Chart 2), a sure sign that they feared that liquidity would be in short supply. Since many of the banks saw the funds return to them as deposits (Chart 3), it seems that the draws were precautionary, rather than emergency, measures. It is entirely possible that the lines will be paid down once businesses replace them with forgivable 1% loans from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funded by the SBA,1 though legislative attempts to replenish the PPP's rapidly consumed initial resources are currently in limbo. Chart 2Corporate Borrowers Drew Down Their Credit Lines With Stunning Speed, ... Chart 3... Only To Put It Back In The Bank Every bank asserted that it had the capacity to continue to pay its dividend, and pledged to do so as long as conditions didn’t deteriorate dramatically. Operationally, the banks were largely able to perform their standard functions without interruption, despite having the majority of their employees working from home. Successful remote operations bode well for future productivity and profitability as they may herald a future in which banks are able to reduce their costly branch footprints. They also suggest that their ongoing IT investments are paying dividends. A Sudden Stop In Household Spending (Chart 4) And Borrowing Chart 4Sudden Stop [I]n March, we saw a rapid decline in spend initially in travel and entertainment, which then spread to restaurants and retail as social distancing protocols were implemented more broadly. … [W]e did see an initial boost to supermarkets, wholesale clubs and discount stores as people stocked up on provisions, but even that is now starting to normalize. (Piepszak, JPM CFO) [Credit card] spend in aggregate was down 13% in the month of March, year-over-year, and we are seeing trends like that continue here in April. (Piepszak, JPM) Consumer spend is down over 25% year-over-year this past week with food and drug increasing and other spend down significantly. (Scharf, WFC CEO) March 2020 [card] volumes declined approximately 15% from March 2019. (Shrewsberry, WFC CFO) [Our customers’] … overall spending … seems to have stabilized in the last few weeks. During mid-April, we’re seeing [weekly] spending running about a low $50 billion average level compared to $60 billion … before the crisis. (Moynihan, BAC CEO) [T]he last week of March, the card spend activity just broadly for us was down about 30%. … [W]e would expect there to be continued pressure on purchase sale volumes through most of the second quarter. (Mason, C CFO) A Sharp Rise In Credit Line Utilization, … C&I loans were up 26% [year-on-year] as revolver utilization increased to 44%, which is an all-time high. … [E]arly here in the second quarter, we have seen a pause on revolver draws but … we are assuming … that we will see [them] continue in the second quarter, albeit at lower levels than the first quarter. (Piepszak, JPM) [The draws] really have flattened out, and they have been negligible for the last several days, more than a week. And so they probably peaked at the end of the third week of March, and then came right back down. … It’s worth noting that the high rate of [utilization] growth … has backed off since credit markets have reopened. (Shrewsberry, WFC) The draw activity was pretty normal through the first week of March, but ramped up in the second week before peaking in the third. The requests have come down in every one of the last three weeks. (Moynihan, BAC) [C]oming into the second quarter, we’ve actually seen really de minimis draws on the facilities and … we don’t see or feel that [drawdown] pressure now. (Corbat, C CEO) [T]he drawdowns were high in the third and fourth week in March and started to level out in early April. So I think we saw the peak already occurring. (Dolan, USB CFO) … Accompanied By A Surge In Deposits [A]bout half of [the increase in deposits came] from clients drawing on their credit lines and holding their cash with us as they look to secure liquidity. (Piepszak, JPM) It’s worth noting [that] ... we saw many of those draws come back … as deposits. [T]he 75% of loan draws [that] were not used for other paydowns ended up as deposits with [us]. (Moynihan, BAC) The Current Situation Is Unprecedented, … [T]here is no model that [has] dealt with GDP down 40%, unemployment growing that rapidly. … [There are] no models that ever dealt with a government which is doing a PPP program which might be ... $550 billion, unemployment where it looks like 30-40% [of those unemployed will have] higher income than before they went on unemployment, … or that the government is going to make direct payments to people. So what does that mean for credit card [performance]? (Dimon, JPM CEO) The economy is in an unprecedented situation, but not all of the unknowns are bad. The monetary and fiscal stimulus programs will undoubtedly help at the margin, and they may dramatically reduce the second-round effects of the social distancing measures that have strangled activity. We all know we haven’t seen anything like this before. There is no clear path … with a narrow range of outcomes. And so [I just have a very hard time] making an analogy of what this environment is to other environments. Having said that, … we feel like the portfolios that we have are stronger than they were at other downturns as I think they certainly are in many banks out there. (Scharf, WFC) I would just [dis]courage anyone from imagining that at this point in time that any bank has got perfect clairvoyance about … the future …, and whether it gets better or … worse. (Shrewsberry, WFC) Obviously there are many unknowns including how government fiscal and monetary actions will impact the outcome and how our own deferral programs will impact losses, or perhaps the biggest unknown is how long economic activity and conditions will be significantly impacted by the virus. (Donofrio, BAC CFO) … But Credit Performance Might Not Be Horrendous The real question will ultimately be how long this shutdown actually continues, … but in addition to that, how our actions, … the things that we’re doing very actively to help our clients, and the huge amount of government intervention, whether those things will … bridge individuals and small businesses and larger corporations to the other side of this. (Scharf, WFC) It wouldn’t surprise me to continue to have to add to reserves, … [b]ut … what we know is, we’re strong and the industry is strong to be able to handle this. (Scharf, WFC) For years now, we have been focused on client selection. As you all know, what really impacts banks in recession is not the loans put on your books during stress, but rather the quality of your portfolio booked during the years leading up to the stress. (Donofrio, BAC) [T]his isn’t a financial crisis, it’s a public health crisis with severe economic ramifications. … [W]e entered [it] in a very strong position from capital, liquidity and balance sheet perspective. We have the resources we need to serve our clients without jeopardizing our safety and soundness. … I feel confident in our ability to manage through whatever scenario comes to pass. (Corbat, C) I think, generally speaking, all banks are in a good position right now, which is why we’re all able to help our customers while protecting employees. (Cecere, USB CEO) Today we received the first major distribution of the direct payments in terms of the $1,200 stimulus payment. We’re seeing now the unemployment benefits, the extra $600 … coming through. [T]hose programs are just barely hitting the general consumer, general business, et cetera. And so … the stimulus they’ll provide is actually going to be from now on, not from now backwards, because this is a program that didn’t exist literally three weeks ago. (Moynihan, BAC) [T]hese [fiscal and monetary] programs … are extraordinary and should have an extraordinary impact. (Piepszak, JPM) Buy The Banks? The uncertainty around loan losses remains extremely high. No one knows how long the economy will remain locked down, or how long it will take to restart the economy once the most restrictive social distancing measures begin to be relaxed. No one knows how large the package of fiscal and monetary assistance will become, or how effective it will ultimately be. Analysts were clearly skeptical that the amounts the banks set aside in the first quarter as reserves against future losses will be sufficient. They were concerned about the gaps between current reserve levels and the losses the banks realized in the global financial crisis, and the cumulative losses projected under the severely adverse scenario of the 2019 iteration of the Fed’s annual stress tests (Table 1). If the virus drag on the economy persists into the third quarter, as our base-case scenario projects, the banks will likely have to step up their reserving activity aggressively. Given that they were able to do so in the first quarter without impairing their book values (Table 2), however, we think they can handle it. Table 1Loan Loss Reserves Vs. Stress Test Projections Table 2Big Bank Book Values The bull case, as BAC’s CEO put it on the call, rests on the idea that the banks’ quarterly pre-tax pre-provision net revenue – their earnings power – is large enough to absorb the gathering tide of writedowns. After seeing the first quarter results, and believing that monetary and fiscal policy will be able to reduce the overall level of credit losses and spread them out across several quarters, provided the shutdown doesn’t last more than six months, we subscribe to it. We are a buyer of the largest banks on the view that the monetary and fiscal support will reduce and stretch out the inevitable writedowns enough to allow the banks to earn their way through them without suffering meaningful book-value declines. Let’s go back to the beginning on the pre-tax PPNR[.] [W]e feel [that earnings power] has us in good stead in terms of [our] ability to absorb whatever circumstances play out here. The reality is how much earnings capacity [we] have to keep generating capital and … earnings that [we] can offset whatever comes at [us] and that’s what we feel good about. (Moynihan, BAC) Table 3A Solid Month's Work The SIFI put options we flagged four weeks ago have expired worthless, yielding a tidy 9% one-month gain for investors who wrote them (Table 3). That call was founded on the interaction between low book-value multiples and astronomical implied volatilities, but didn’t fully embrace the banks. We are ready to take the next step now because we believe pre-provision earnings will match or exceed the somewhat attenuated stream of credit losses, allowing investors to buy the biggest banks at a price-to-tangible-book multiple with a margin of safety that would comfort Benjamin Graham. We recommend overweighting the largest banks in US equity portfolios.2   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the April 14, 2020 US Investment Strategy/US Bond Strategy Special Report, "Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed’s Anti-Virus Measures," available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Our US Equity Strategy service rates the S&P 500 banks group overweight, albeit with a downgrade alert.

Highlights Stay tactically neutral to equities. The market may meet some short-term resistance, especially as a slew of poor earnings are released in the coming weeks. The long-term threat to equities comes from the pandemic’s lasting after-effects, such as financial and corporate distress, and/or a political backlash against the private sector. Long-term investors should prefer equities over bonds, with the caveat that the threat does not materialise. Long-term equity investors should avoid oil and gas and European banks at all costs… …but healthcare, European personal products, and European clothes and accessories should all form core long-term holdings. Fractal trade: long nickel / short copper. Feature Chart of the WeekSales Per Share Must 'Catch Down' With GDP, Just Like In 2008 The sharp snapback rally in stock markets has reached an important resistance point – the critical Fibonacci level of a 38.2 percent proportionate retracement of the sell-off.1 Technical analysts define the sell-off in terms of the most recent peak to trough. But we define it differently. We define it in terms of the longest time horizon of investors that capitulated at the sell-off. The market may meet some short-term resistance. The longest time horizon of investors that capitulated at the sell-off’s climax on March 18 was a seven-quarter horizon. Hence, we define the sell-off as the seven-quarter decline to March 18. On that basis, and using the DAX as our benchmark, we would expect the index to meet resistance at around a 21 percent retracement rally from the March 18 low. Which is pretty much where the DAX stands right now (Chart I-2).2 Chart I-22020 Low: A Seven-Quarter Capitulation Followed By A Fibonacci Retracement After A Sharp Snapback Rally What Happens Next? The maximum length of investment horizons that capitulated on March 18 was unusually long at seven quarters. This should comfort long-term investors because of an important investment identity: Financial markets have fully priced a downturn when the longest time horizon of investors that have capitulated = the length of the downturn. So, the good news is that the March 18 bottom should hold if the downturn does not last longer than seven quarters. In this regard, the main risk of a protracted downturn comes not from the pandemic itself. Even if the pandemic returns in second and third waves, any economic shutdowns, full or partial, should last considerably less than seven quarters. Instead, the main risk comes from lasting after-effects, such as financial and corporate distress, and/or a political backlash against the private sector. The long-term threat comes from the pandemic’s after-effects on economic and political systems. But a protracted downturn of what? As we are focussing on the stock market, the downturn is not of GDP per se but its stock market equivalent: sales per share. In the long run, sales per share and GDP advance at the same rate. But the sector compositions of the stock market and GDP are not the same, so over shorter periods sales per share can underperform or outperform GDP. In which case, sales per share must catch up or catch down (Chart of the Week). In 2008, sales per share had to catch down. As a result, world sales per share declined for seven quarters through 2008-10, considerably longer than the decline in GDP (Chart I-3). Hence, the stock market found its bottom in early March 2009 when the longest time horizon of investors that had capitulated had reached seven quarters (Chart I-4). Chart I-32008-10: Sales Per Share Fell For Seven Quarters Chart I-42009 Low: A Seven-Quarter Capitulation Followed By A Fibonacci Retracement From this March 2009 bottom, the Fibonacci retracement equated to a 35 percent advance, which the market achieved by early June 2009. Thereafter, stocks met short-term resistance and gave back some of the snapback rally. Fast forward to 2020. Having likewise reached the Fibonacci retracement, the market may meet some short-term resistance, especially as a slew of poor earnings are released in the coming weeks. Assuming no lasting after-effects from financial distress or political backlash, the next sustained advance will happen later this year. Valuations Flatter Equities, But They Still Beat Bonds Turning to long-term investors the three most important things are: valuation, valuation, and valuation. Our favourite valuation measure is price to sales, which has been a good predictor of 10-year prospective returns going back to at least the 1980s (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Price To Sales Might Over-Estimate Prospective Returns In 2020, Just Like In 2008 But the predictive power depends on a crucial underlying assumption – that the past is a good guide to the future. Specifically, today we must assume that the pandemic causes just a brief blip in the multi-decade uptrend in stock market sales and profits. To repeat, the main long-term threat to stock markets comes not from the pandemic itself. The long-term threat comes from the pandemic’s after-effects on economic and political systems – such as crippled banking systems or large-scale nationalisations of the private sector. Furthermore, price to sales will err in its prediction if sales per share have deviated from GDP – implying either a future catch up or catch down. In the 1990s sales per share had underperformed GDP, so future returns outperformed the valuation prediction. However, in 2008 sales per share had outperformed GDP, so future returns underperformed the prediction. Today, just as in 2008, sales per share have become overstretched relative to GDP, so there will be a catch down. Which will weigh down prospective returns relative to what valuations appear to imply. Still, even adjusting for this, equities are likely to produce annualised nominal returns in the mid-single digits, comfortably higher than the yields on long-term government bonds. Hence, with the caveat that the pandemic does not generate lasting after-effects for economic and political systems, long-term investors should prefer equities over bonds. What Not To Buy, And What To Buy If a stock, sector, or stock market maintains a structural uptrend in sales and profits, then a big drop in the share price provides an excellent buying opportunity for long-term investors. In this case, the lower share price is stretching the elastic between the price and the up-trending profits, resulting in an eventual snap upwards. However, if sales and profits are in terminal decline, then the sell-off is not a buying opportunity other than on a tactical basis. This is because the elastic will lose its tension as profits drift down towards the lower price. In fact, despite the sell-off, if the profit downtrend continues, the elastic may be forced to snap downwards! Do not buy sectors whose profits are in major downtrends. This leads to a somewhat counterintuitive conclusion for long-term investors. After a big drop in the stock market, do not buy everything that has dropped. And do not buy the stocks and sectors that have dropped the most if their profits are in major downtrends. Specifically, the profits of oil and gas and European banks are in major structural downtrends (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Long-term equity investors should avoid these sectors at all costs. Chart I-6Oil And Gas Profits In A Major ##br##Downtrend Chart I-7European Banks Profits In A Major Downtrend Conversely, the profits of healthcare, European personal products, and European clothes and accessories are all in major structural uptrends (Chart I-8 - Chart I-10). As such, all three sectors should be core holdings for all long-term equity investors. Chart I-8Healthcare Profits In A ##br##Major Uptrend Chart I-9European Personal Products Profits In A Major Uptrend Chart I-10European Clothing Profits In A Major Uptrend Fractal Trading System* Given the outsized moves in markets over the past month, all assets have become highly correlated making it more difficult to find candidates for trend reversals. Chart I-11Nickel Vs. Copper However, we find that some relative moves within the commodity complex have not correlated with risk on/off. Specifically, the underperformance of nickel versus copper is technically stretched, so this week’s recommended trade is long nickel / short copper, setting a profit target of 11 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 67 percent. 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 0.382 = 1- phi. Where phi is the Golden Ratio, defined as the ratio of successive Fibonacci numbers in the limit. Alternatively, phi =1 / (1 + phi). 2 The seven-quarter sell-off in the DAX (capital only) to March 18 2020 was 39.4 percent, so a full retracement rally equals 65.1 percent, and a 0.382 geometric retracement equals 21.1 percent. 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  

Special Report

Highlights The Fed has been awfully busy since the middle of March, … : Over the last 30 days, the Fed has unleashed a barrage of measures to support market liquidity and alleviate economic hardship. … unveiling a package of facilities to keep credit flowing to consumers, businesses and municipalities, … : The Fed is building a sizable firewall against market seizure, touching on commercial paper, money market funds, asset-backed securities, small business loans, municipal notes, investment-grade corporate bonds and ETFs and high-yield corporate ETFs. … and loosening regulatory strictures to encourage banks to put their capital buffers to work: The Fed and other major bank regulators have eased some of the post-2008 rules to encourage banks to ramp up market-making activity and increase lending to cushion the shock to the economy. Investors should buy what the Fed is buying: Fixed income investors should look to capture excess spreads in markets that have not yet priced in the full effect of the Fed’s indemnity. Banks and agency mortgage REITs offer a way to implement this theme in equities. Feature What A Difference A Pandemic Makes “Whatever it takes” is clearly the order of the day for Jay Powell and company, as well as Congress and the White House, to mitigate the potentially pernicious second-round economic damage from COVID-19. In this Special Report, we detail the Fed’s key initiatives. Central banks are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and they cannot stave off all of the pressure from mass quarantines, but we do expect the Fed’s measures will cushion the economic blow, and reflate prices in targeted asset markets. The Fed began pulling out all the stops to fight the virus on Sunday, March 15th with what have now become stock emergency responses: zero rates and purchases of Treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Although the MBS purchases began the week of March 23rd, and have continued at a steady clip despite appearing to have swiftly surpassed their $200 billion target, they have not yet achieved much traction in the mortgage market. The spread between the current coupon agency MBS and the 10-year Treasury yield has come down a bit, but the average 30-year fixed-rate home mortgage rate does not reflect the 150 basis points ("bps") of rate cuts since the beginning of March (Chart 1). The Fed’s measures are intended to help direct the flow of credit to adversely affected constituencies with a pressing need for it. Other measures to relieve liquidity pressures, like the Fed’s ongoing overnight repo operations, have achieved their aim. The signal indicator of liquidity strains, the effective fed funds rate, was bumping up against the top of the Fed’s target range for several days after the return to zero interest rate policy. Over the last week, however, it has settled around 5 bps, near the bottom of its range (Chart 2), suggesting that the formerly tight overnight funding market is now amply supplied. Chart 1MBS Purchases Haven't Helped Main Street Yet Chart 2Overnight Funding Stresses ##br##Have Eased The rest of the Fed’s measures (Table 1) have been more finely targeted, intended to help direct the flow of credit to adversely affected constituencies with a pressing need for it. We focus on the most important measures in the following section and summarize their common elements in Table 2. The following discussions of the individual programs highlight their intent, their chances of success, and yardsticks for tracking their progress. We conclude with the fixed income and equity niches that are most likely to benefit from the Fed’s efforts. Table 1A Frenzied Month Of Activity Table 2The 2020 Federal Reserve Emergency Programs A Field Guide To The Acronym Jungle Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF) Under the MMLF, which started on March 23rd, US banks can borrow from the Fed to purchase eligible assets mainly from prime money market funds. These assets are in turn pledged to the Fed as collateral, effectively allowing the Fed to lend to prime money market funds via banks. Assets eligible for purchase from these funds include: US Treasuries & fully guaranteed agencies Securities issued by US GSEs Asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) rated A1 or its equivalent, issued by a US issuer US municipal short-term debt (excluding variable rate demand notes) Backed by $10 billion of credit protection from the Treasury, the Fed will lend at the primary credit rate (the discount rate, currently 0.25%) for pledged asset purchases of US Treasuries, fully guaranteed agencies or securities issued by US GSEs. For any other assets pledged, the Fed will charge an additional 100 bps – with the exception of US municipal short-term debt to which the Fed only applies a 25-bps surcharge. Chart 3The MMLF Already Providing Some Relief Loans made under the MMLF are fully non-recourse (the Fed can recover nothing more from the borrower than the pledged collateral). Banks borrowing from the Fed under the MMLF bear no credit risk and have therefore been exempted from risk-based capital and leverage requirements for any asset pledged to the MMLF, an important element that should promote MMLF participation. This facility is a direct descendant of the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF), which operated from September 2008 to February 2010 to prevent a run on prime money market funds after a prominent fund “broke the buck.” Its objective is to help prime money market funds meet redemption requests from investors and increase liquidity in the markets for the assets held by these funds – most notably commercial paper where prime money market funds represent 21% of the market. Those funds have experienced large outflows in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic and building economic crisis – erasing $140 billion, or 18%, of the fund segment’s total net assets in a matter of days (Chart 3, top panel). Since it started, the MMLF has extended $53 billion of credit to prime money funds, about a third of AMLF’s output in its first 10 days of operation. The financial sector is suffering a big shock, but it is not the source of the problem like it was in 2008, so the situation is not as dire as it was in late 2008, and we are already seeing a tentative stabilization of asset outflows from money market funds. Commercial paper spreads have also narrowed, implying that the combination of the MMLF and the CPFF (see below) is having the intended effect (Chart 3, bottom panel). Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) Starting today, April 14th, the Fed will revive 2008’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) with the aim of restoring liquidity to a market where investment grade corporate borrowers raise cash to finance payroll, inventories, accounts payable and other short-term liabilities. The 2020 iteration applies to municipalities as well, extending its reach across the real economy. Via a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) (see Box) funded with a $10 billion equity investment from the Treasury Department, the CPFF will purchase US dollar-denominated investment-grade (A1/P1/F1) three-month asset-backed, corporate and municipal commercial paper priced at the overnight index swap rate (OIS) plus 110 bps. Lower-rated issuers are not eligible, but investment-grade borrowers who were downgraded to A2/P2/F2 after March 17th, 2020 can be grandfathered into the program at a higher spread of OIS+200 bps. The pricing is tighter than it was in 2008, when unsecured investment grade and asset-backed issues were priced at OIS+100 bps and OIS+300 bps, respectively, and the Fed did not have the loss protection provided by an equity investment in the SPV.   Box 1 - SPV Mechanics The Fed has set up Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) in connection with most of the facilities we examine here. Each SPV has been seeded by the Treasury department to carry out the facility’s work. The Fed lends several multiples of the Treasury’s initial equity investment to each SPV to provide it with a total capacity of anywhere from eight to fourteen times its equity capital, based on the riskiness of the assets the SPV is purchasing or lending against. The result is that most of the cash used to operate the facilities will come from the Fed in the form of loans with full recourse to the SPVs’ assets, but the Treasury department will own the equity tranche. The Treasury therefore bears the first credit losses, should any occur. Issuers are only eligible if they have issued three-month commercial paper in the twelve months preceding the March 17th announcement of the program. The Federal Reserve did not set an explicit limit on the size of the program, but funding for any single issuer is limited to the amount of outstanding commercial paper it had during that twelve-month period. The 2020 CPFF could therefore max out above $750 billion, the peak size of the domestic commercial paper market over the past year (Chart 4). If the first CPFF’s experience is any guide, however, it’s unlikely that its full capacity will be needed. Its assets peaked at $350 billion in January 2009, around a quarter of 2008’s $1.5 trillion average outstanding balance. A similar proportion today would cap the fund at $175-200 billion. As in 2008 (Chart 5, bottom panel), the mere announcement of the program has driven commercial paper spreads significantly below their previously stressed levels (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4Pressure On The Domestic Commercial Paper Market... Chart 5...Is Being Relieved Ahead Of The CPFF Implementation Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) The asset-backed securities (ABS) market funds a significant share of the credit extended to consumers and small businesses. The Fed’s TALF program that started on March 23rd aims to provide US companies holding AAA collateral with funding of up to $100 billion, in the form of 3-year non-recourse loans secured by AAA-rated ABS. It will be conducted via an SPV backed by a $10 billion equity investment from the US Treasury Department. Chart 6Narrower Spreads Promote Easier Financial Conditions At The Margin Eligible collateral includes ABS with exposure to auto loans, student loans, credit card receivables, equipment loans, floorplan loans, insurance premium finance loans, SBA-guaranteed loans and leveraged loans issued after March 23rd, 2020. Last week, the Fed added agency CMBS issued before March 23rd, 2020 and left the door open to further expansion of the pool of eligible securities. The rate charged on the loans is based on the type of collateral and its weighted average life. Depending on the ABS, the spreads will range from 75 bps to 150 bps over one of four different benchmarks (LIBOR, SOFR, OIS or the upper 25-bps bound of the target fed funds range). The spreads are reasonable, and will not keep ABS holders away from the facility, but they’re not meant to be giveaways. The 2009 TALF program originally had a $200 billion capacity, which was later expanded to $1 trillion. Those numbers make the current iteration’s $100 billion limit look awfully modest, but only $71 billion worth of loans were eventually granted the first time around. ABS spreads have already narrowed significantly (Chart 6), suggesting the program is already making a difference. Although an incremental $100 billion of loans is not likely to move the needle much for the US economy, narrower spreads will promote easier financial conditions at the margin. Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF) Though no firm start date has been given, the Fed will soon enter the secondary market and start purchasing corporate bonds. As with all of the other facilities discussed in this section except the MMLF, the SMCCF is set up as an SPV. It will have up to $250 billion of buying power, anchored by $25 billion of equity funding from the Treasury department. Once it’s up and running, the SMCCF will buy non-bank corporate bonds in the secondary market that meet the following criteria: Issuer rated at least BBB-/Baa3 (the lowest investment grade tier) as of March 22nd, 2020 A remaining maturity of 5 years or less Issuer is a US business with material operations, and a majority of its employees, in the US Issuer is not expected to receive direct financial assistance from the federal government The SMCCF can own a maximum of 10% of any single firm’s outstanding debt, and it may dip into the BB-rated market for securities that were downgraded from BBB after March 22nd. In addition to cash bonds, the SMCCF will also buy ETFs that track the broad corporate bond market. The Fed says that the “preponderance” of SMCCF ETF purchases will be of ETFs tracking investment grade corporate bond benchmarks (like LQD), but it will also buy some high-yield ETFs (like HYG). We expect that the SMCCF will be able to achieve its direct goal of driving down borrowing costs for otherwise healthy firms that may struggle to access credit markets in the current environment. One way to track the program’s success is to monitor investment grade corporate credit spreads (Chart 7). Spreads have been tightening aggressively since the Fed announced the program on March 23rd but are still elevated compared to average historical levels. The slope of the line of investment grade corporate bond spreads plotted by maturity will be another important metric (Chart 8). An inverted spread slope tends to coincide with a sharply rising default rate, since it signals that investors are worried about near-term default risk. By purchasing investment grade bonds with maturities of 5 years or less, the Fed hopes to maintain a positively sloped spread curve. Chart 7SMCCF Announcement Marked The Peak In Spreads Chart 8Fed Wants A Positive ##br##Spread Slope Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) The PMCCF employs the same structure as the SMCCF, but it is twice as large. The Treasury’s initial equity investment will be $50 billion and Fed loans will scale its capacity up to $500 billion. As a complement to the SMCCF, the PMCCF will purchase newly issued non-bank corporate bonds. The eligibility criteria are the same as the SMCCF’s, but the PMCCF will only buy bonds with a maturity of 4 years or less. The new issuance purchased by the PMCCF can be new debt or it can be used to refinance existing debt. The only caveat is that the maximum amount of borrowing from the facility cannot exceed 130% of the issuer’s maximum debt outstanding on any day between March 22nd, 2019 and March 22nd, 2020. Essentially, eligible firms can use the facility to refinance their entire stock of debt and then top it up by another 30% if they so choose. The goals of the PMCCF are to keep the primary issuance markets open and to prevent bankruptcy for firms that were rated investment grade before the virus outbreak. Investment grade corporate bond issuance shut down completely for a stretch in early March, but then surged once the Fed announced the PMCCF and SMCCF on March 23rd. The PMCCF will have achieved lasting traction if gross corporate bond issuance holds up in the coming months (Chart 9). It should also meet its bankruptcy-prevention goal, since firms will be able to refinance their maturing obligations and tack on some new debt to get through the next few months. Given the large amount of outstanding BBB-rated debt, a lot of fallen angel supply is poised to hit the high-yield bond market. While we expect the PMCCF will succeed in achieving its primary aims, it is unlikely to prevent a large number of ratings downgrades. If a given firm only makes use of the facility to refinance its existing debt at a lower rate, then its ability to service its debt will improve at the margin and its rating should be safe. However, any firm that increases its debt load via this facility will end up with a riskier balance sheet. Ratings agencies will not look through an increased debt burden, and we expect a significant number of ratings downgrades in the coming months (Chart 10, top panel). Chart 9Primary Markets Have Re-Opened Chart 10Fed Actions Won't Prevent Downgrades Given the large amount of outstanding BBB-rated debt, a lot of fallen angel supply is poised to hit the high-yield bond market (Chart 10, middle and bottom panels). The Fed will try to contain the surge by allowing the SMCCF to purchase fallen angel debt, and by providing some support to the upper tiers of high-yield credits through its Main Street Lending Programs. Main Street New Loan Facility (MSNLF) and Main Street Expanded Loan Facility (MSELF) The goal of the MSNLF and MSELF is to provide relief to large firms that are not investment grade credits. Both facilities will draw from the same SPV, which will be funded by a $75 billion equity stake from the Treasury and will then be levered up to a total size of “up to $600 billion” by the Fed. The Main Street facilities are structured differently than the PMCCF and SMCCF in that the Fed will not transact directly with nonfinancial corporate issuers. Rather, the Fed will purchase 95% of the par value of eligible loans from banks (which will retain 5% of the credit risk of each loan), hoping to free up enough extra room on bank balance sheets to promote more lending. To be eligible for purchase by the Main Street New Loan Facility, loans must be issued after April 8th, 2020 and meet the following criteria: Borrowers have less than 10,000 employees or $2.5 billion of 2019 revenue Borrowers are US firms with significant operations, and a majority of employees, in the US Loans are unsecured and have a maturity of 4 years Loans are made at an adjustable rate of SOFR + 250-400 bps Principal and interest payments are deferred for one year Loan size of $1 million to the lesser of $25 million or the amount that keeps the borrower’s Debt-to-EBITDA ratio below 4.01 Loan proceeds cannot be used to refinance existing debt Borrowers must commit to “make reasonable efforts to maintain payroll and retain employees during the term of the loan” The Main Street Expanded Loan Facility applies similar criteria to existing loans that banks will upsize before transferring 95% of the incremental risk to the Fed. The MSELF allows for loans up to the lesser of $150 million, 30% of the borrower’s existing debt (including undrawn commitments) or the amount keeps the borrower’s Debt-to-EBITDA ratio below 6.0. Borrowers can participate in only one of the MSNLF, MSELF and PMCCF, though they can tap the PPP alongside one of the Main Street lending facilities. Chart 11Main Street Programs Will Spur Bank Lending The Main Street facilities endeavor to have banks adopt an “originate to distribute” model. With the Fed assuming 95% of each loan’s credit risk, banks will have nearly unlimited balance sheet capacity to continue originating these sorts of loans. Retaining 5% of each loan ensures that the banks will have enough skin in the game to perform proper due diligence. We expect to see a significant increase in commercial bank C&I loan growth in the coming months once these facilities are up to speed (Chart 11). Crucially for high-yield investors, the debt-to-EBITDA constraints ensure that the Main Street facilities will aid BB- and some B-rated issuers but will not bail out high-default-risk issuers rated CCC and below. BB-rated firms typically have debt-to-EBITDA ratios between 3 and 4, while B-rated issuers typically fall in a range of 4 to 6. For the most part, BB-rated firms will be able to make use of either the MSNLF or MSELF, while B-rated firms will be limited to the MSELF. By leaving out issuers rated CCC & below, the Fed is acquiescing to a significant spike in corporate defaults over the next 12 months. The bulk of corporate defaults come from firms that were rated CCC or below 12 months prior (Chart 12). Chart 12A Significant Increase In Corporate Defaults Is Coming As with the PMCCF, we note that the Main Street facilities offer loans, not grants. While they will address firms’ immediate liquidity issues, they will do so at the cost of more indebted balance sheets. Downgrade risk remains high for BB- and B-rated companies. Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF) The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is a component of the CARES Act that was designed to forestall layoffs by small businesses.  PPP loans are fully guaranteed by the Small Business Association (SBA), which will forgive them if the borrower maintains its employee headcount for eight weeks. The size of the PPPLF has yet to be announced, along with the details of its funding, but its intent is to get PPP loans off of issuers’ balance sheets so as to free up their capital and allow them to make more loans, expanding the PPP’s reach. The Fed will lend on a non-recourse basis at a rate of 0.35% to any depository institution making PPP loans,2 taking PPP loans as collateral at their full face value. PPP loans placed with the Fed are exempt from both risk-weighted and leverage-based capital adequacy measures (please see “Easing Up On The Regulatory Reins,” below). PPP is meant to be no less than a lifeline for households and small businesses, but the devil is in the details. Banks were reportedly overwhelmed with demand for PPP loans over the first five business days that they were available, suggesting that many small businesses still qualify, despite 17 million initial unemployment claims over the last three weeks. Media reports about the program highlighted that there are quite a few kinks yet to be worked out, and it has arrived too late to stave off the first waves of layoffs. Success may be most easily measured by the size of the PPPLF, which should eventually translate into fewer layoffs and bankruptcies than would otherwise have occurred. Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF) Chart 13State & Local Governments Need Support The Municipal Liquidity Facility is similar in structure to the PMCCF, only it is designed to support state and local governments. The MLF SPV will be funded by a $35 billion equity investment from the Treasury, and the Fed will lever it up to a maximum size of $500 billion to purchase newly issued securities directly from state and local governments that meet the following criteria: All states (including D.C.) are eligible, as are cities with populations above 1 million and counties with populations above 2 million. The newly issued notes will have a maximum maturity of 2 years. The MLF can buy new issuance from any one state, city or county up to an amount equal to 20% of that borrower’s fiscal year 2017 general revenue. States can request a higher limit to procure funds for political subdivisions or instrumentalities that aren’t eligible themselves for the MLF. The MLF’s goal is to keep state and local governments liquid as they deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. The large size of the facility – $500 billion is five times 2019’s aggregate muni issuance – should allow it to meet its goal. However, as with the Fed’s other facilities, the support comes in the form of loans, not grants. The lost tax revenue and increased pandemic expenditures cannot be recovered. State and local government balance sheets will emerge from the recession weaker. We can track the program’s success by looking at the spread between municipal bond yields and comparable US Treasury yields. These spreads widened to all-time highs in March, but have since come in significantly, even for longer maturities (Chart 13). If this tightening does not continue, the Fed may eventually enter the secondary market to purchase long-maturity municipal bonds. Supporting such a fragmented market will be tricky, and the Fed may be hoping that more aid will come from Capitol Hill. Central Bank Liquidity Swaps Chart 14US Dollar Debt Is A Global Problem The global economy is loaded with USD-denominated debt issued by entities outside of the US. As of 3Q19, there was roughly $12 trillion of outstanding foreign-issued US dollar debt, exceeding the domestic nonfinancial corporate sector’s total issuance (Chart 14). As the sole provider of US dollars, the Fed has a role to play in supporting foreign dollar-debt issuers during this tumultuous period. Currency swap lines linking the Fed with other central banks can help alleviate the pressure on foreign borrowers to access the US dollars they need to service their debt. For example, once the Fed exchanges dollars for euros using its swap line with the European Central Bank (ECB), the ECB can then direct those US dollars toward USD-denominated borrowers within the Euro Area. Widening cross-currency basis swap spreads are a tried-and-true signal that US dollars are becoming too scarce. The Fed responded to widening basis swap spreads by instituting swap lines during the financial crisis and again during the Eurozone debt crisis of 2011. In both instances, the swap lines eventually calmed the market and basis swap spreads moved back toward zero (Chart 15). Chart 15The Cost Of US Dollars Since 2013, the Fed has maintained unlimited swap lines with the central banks of the Euro Area, Canada, UK, Japan and Switzerland. On March 19th, it extended limited swap lines to the central banks of Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Korea, Mexico, Norway, New Zealand, Singapore and Sweden. These swap lines will help ease stresses for some foreign issuers of US dollar debt, but not all. One potential problem is that the foreign central banks that acquire dollars via the swap lines may be unwilling or unable to direct those dollars to debtors in their countries. Another problem is that several emerging markets (EM) countries do not have access to the Fed’s swap facility. EM issuers account for roughly one-third of foreign-issued dollar debt (Chart 14, bottom panel). For example, the governments of the Philippines, Colombia, Indonesia and Turkey all carry large US dollar debt balances, not to mention US dollar debt issued by the EM corporate sector in non-swap line countries. Currency swap lines linking the Fed with other central banks can help alleviate the pressure on foreign borrowers to access the US dollars they need to service their debt. The swap lines that are already in place have led to basis swap spread tightening in developed markets. If global growth eventually rebounds and the dollar weakens, EM dollar-debt burdens will become easier to service. However, until that happens, a default by some foreign issuer of US dollar debt remains a non-trivial tail risk. The Fed may need to extend swap lines to more countries to mitigate this risk in the months ahead. Easing Up On The Regulatory Reins As we’ve argued in US Investment Strategy Special Reports the last two weeks, the largest US banks are extremely well capitalized.3 The Fed agrees, and over the last 30 days, it has issued six separate statements encouraging the banks to lend or to work with struggling borrowers, all but one of them in concert with its fellow banking regulators. Although the largest banks have amassed sizable capital cushions that would support increased lending, post-GFC regulations often crimp incentives to deploy them. Over the last 30 days, the Fed and the other federal regulators have granted banks relief from the key binding constraints. Those constraints fall into two broad categories: risk-based requirements, which are based on risk weightings assigned to individual assets, and leverage requirements, which are based on total assets or total leverage exposure. All banks are required to maintain minimum ratios of equity capital to risk-weighted assets under the former and to total leverage, which includes some off-balance-sheet exposures, under the latter. The three federal banking regulators have amended rules to exclude MMLF and PPP exposures from the regulatory capital denominator used to calculate risk-weighted and leverage ratios. The Fed also made a similar move by excluding Treasury securities and deposits held at the Fed from the denominator of the supplementary leverage ratio large banks must maintain (3% for banks with greater than $250 billion in assets, 5% for SIFIs). Reducing the denominators increases the banks’ ratios and expands their lending capacity. Community banks’ capital adequacy is determined by their leverage ratio (equity to total assets), and regulators have temporarily cut it to 8% from 9%. We expect that easing capital constraints will spur the banks to lend more in the coming weeks and months, but it’s not a sure thing. A clear lesson from the Bernanke Fed’s three rounds of quantitative easing is that the Fed can lead banks to water, but it can’t make them drink. A considerable amount of the funds the Fed deployed to buy Treasury and agency securities was simply squirreled away by banks, and wound up being neither lent nor spent. Lending is not the Fed’s sole focus, though: it hopes that easing capital regulations will also encourage banks and broker-dealers to ramp up their market-making activity, improving capital market liquidity across a range of instruments. Investment Implications While all of the programs discussed above have expiration dates, they can be extended if necessary. Flexible end dates illustrate the open-ended nature of the Fed’s (and Congress’) support, and help underpin our contention that more aid will be forthcoming at the drop of a hat. Confronting the most severe recession in 90 years and an especially competitive election, policymakers can be counted upon to err to the side of providing too much stimulus. That is not to say, however, that the measures amount to a justification for loading up on all risk assets. Every space will not be helped equally. Spreads for all corporate credit tiers are cheap compared to history, but only BB-rated and higher benefit from the Fed’s programs. Within US fixed income, investors should look for opportunities in sectors that offer attractive spreads and directly benefit from Fed support. In the corporate bond market this means owning securities rated BB or higher and avoiding debt rated B and below. Spreads for all corporate credit tiers are cheap compared to history (Charts 16A & 16B), but only BB-rated and higher benefit from the Fed’s programs. Some B-rated issuers will be able to access the MSELF, but Fed support for the B-rated credit tier is limited. Fed support is non-existent for securities rated CCC or lower. Chart 16AInvestment Grade Valuation Chart 16BHigh-Yield Valuation Elsewhere, several traditionally low-risk spread sectors also meet our criteria of offering attractive spreads and benefitting from Fed support. AAA-rated Consumer ABS spreads are wide and will benefit from TALF. Agency CMBS spreads are also attractive and those securities are being directly purchased by the Fed (Chart 17). We also like the opportunity in Agency bonds (the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and Supranationals, where spreads are currently well above historical levels (Chart 17, third panel). Chart 17Opportunities In Low-Risk Spread Product Chart 18Not Enough Value In Agency MBS Agency MBS are less appealing. Spreads have already tightened back to pre-COVID levels and while continued Fed buying should keep them low, returns will be much better in the investment grade corporate space (Chart 18).  Meanwhile, we would also advocate long positions in municipal bonds. Spreads are wide and the Fed is now providing support out to the 2-year maturity point (see Chart 13). We also see potential for the Fed to start purchasing longer-maturity municipal debt if spreads don’t tighten quickly enough. Chart 19Look For Attractive Spreads In Countries With Swap Lines Finally, we would also consider the USD-denominated sovereign debt of countries to which the Fed has extended swap lines, with Mexico offering a prime example. Its USD-denominated debt offers an attractive spread and it has been extended a swap line (Chart 19). In equities, agency mortgage REITs – monoline lenders that manage MBS portfolios 8-10 times the size of their equity capital – are a levered play on buying what the Fed’s buying. They were beaten up quite badly throughout March, and have been de-rated enough to deliver double-digit total returns as long as the repo market doesn’t flare up again, and agency MBS spreads do not widen anew. We see large banks as a direct beneficiary of policymakers’ efforts to limit credit distress and expect that their loan losses could ultimately be less than markets fear. While lenders have an incentive to be the first to push secured borrowers into default in a normal recession to ensure they’re first in line to liquidate collateral, they now have an incentive to keep borrowers from defaulting lest they end up having to carry the millstone of seized collateral on their balance sheets for an indefinite period. Regulatory forbearance may end up being every bit as helpful for bank book values as the ability to move securities into the Fed’s non-recourse facilities. Footnotes 1 This calculation uses 2019 EBITDA and includes undrawn loan commitments in total debt. 2 The Fed plans to expand the program to include non-bank SBA-approved lenders in the near future. 3 Please see the US Investment Strategy Special Reports, “How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 1: A 50-Year Bottom-Up Case Study,” and “How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 2: It’s Complicated,” published March 30 and April 6, 2020, respectively, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe Associate Editor jenniferl@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com

Highlights US Corporates: The Fed continues to expand the reach of its extraordinary monetary policies designed to combat the COVID-19 recession, now giving itself the ability to hold BB-rated US high-yield bonds within its corporate bond buying programs. Raise allocations to US BB-rated corporates to overweight, within a neutral overall strategic (6-12 months) allocation to US high-yield. Euro Area Corporates: European investment grade corporate debt has seen significant spread widening over the past month, but spreads have stabilized with the ECB introducing a new asset purchase program with fewer restrictions. Upgrade euro area investment grade corporates to neutral from underweight on both a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Favor debt from beaten-up sectors that are already priced for severe economic weakness like Energy, Transportation and non-bank Financials. Central Banks Are A Corporate Bond Investor’s Best Friend Right Now Chart of the WeekThe Fed & ECB Are Supporting Bond Markets The actions of policymakers worldwide to help mitigate the severe economic shock from the COVID-19 recession have helped boost global risk assets over the past couple of weeks. This is particularly notable in US corporate bond markets, where credit spreads have tightened for both shorter-maturity investment grade bonds and Ba-rated high-yield (Chart of the Week). It is not a coincidence that those are the parts of the US corporate bond market that the Fed is now explicitly backstopping through its off-balance-sheet investment programs. Last week, the Fed unveiled yet another “bazooka” to help ease US financial conditions, broadening the scope of its previously investment grade-only corporate bond purchase programs to include Ba-rated high-yield corporate bonds and high-yield ETFs. In Europe, meanwhile, the European Central Bank (ECB) is also providing additional monetary support through increased asset purchases of both government and corporate debt. Those purchases are focused more on the weakest links in the euro area financial and economic chain like Italian sovereign bonds. This has helped to stabilize credit spreads for both Italian government bonds and euro area investment grade corporate debt. This support from policymakers is critical to prevent a further tightening of financial conditions during a severe global recession (Chart 2). The excess return (over government bonds) for the Bloomberg Barclays global high-yield bond index is now down 15% on a year-over-year basis. High-yield corporate bond spreads are well above the lows seen earlier this year on both sides of the Atlantic, across all credit quality tiers. In the US, spreads between credit quality tiers had widened to levels not seen in several years. Within the US investment grade universe, the gap between Baa-rated and Aa-rated spreads had widened from 20bps to 60bps (Chart 3), a level last seen in September 2011, but now sits at 39bps. Chart 2Junk Bonds Already Discount A Big Recession Chart 3The Fed Wants These Spreads To Tighten Looking in the other direction of the credit quality spectrum, the spread between Baa-rated and Ba-rated corporates – the line of demarcation between investment grade and high-yield bonds – had blown out from 132bps in February to 556bps, but is now at 360bps. This is the market pricing in the growing risk of fallen angels being downgraded from investment grade to junk. In our view, the Ba-Baa spread is the best indicator to follow to see if the Fed’s extension of its bond purchase program to high-yield is working to reduce borrowing costs for lower-rated US companies. Both in the US and Europe, we continue to recommend a credit investment strategy that favors the parts of the markets that the Fed and ECB are most directly involved in now. That means staying overweight US investment grade corporate bonds with maturities of less than five years (the Fed’s maturity limit for its bond buying program). It also means staying overweight Italian government debt versus core European equivalents. The Fed’s new extension into high-yield corporates within its buying programs means we need to upgrade our recommendation on US BB-rated high-yield to overweight within our recommended neutral strategic (6-12 months) allocation to US junk bonds. We are making that change on a tactical basis in our model bond portfolio, as well, as can be seen on pages 14-15. As the title of this Weekly Report suggests, buy what the central banks are buying. The Fed’s new extension into high-yield corporates within its buying programs means we need to upgrade our recommendation on US BB-rated high-yield to overweight within our recommended neutral strategic (6-12 months) allocation to US junk bonds. In Europe, there is now scope to also raise allocations to euro area corporate bonds, as well, as we discuss over the remainder of this report. Bottom Line: The Fed continues to expand the reach of its extraordinary monetary policies designed to combat the COVID-19 recession, now giving itself the ability to hold BB-rated US high-yield bonds within its corporate bond buying programs. Raise allocations to US BB-rated corporates to overweight within a neutral overall strategic (6-12 months) allocation to US high-yield. Looking For Value In Euro Area Investment Grade Bonds The outlook for euro area spread product does not have as clean-cut a story as is the case for US credit. The ECB is not explicitly supporting European corporate credit markets to the same degree as the Fed is with its open-ended off-balance sheet investment vehicles. While the ECB has introduced a new large €750bn asset purchase program, the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP), to help ease financial conditions in the euro area, no specific details have yet been provided specifying how much of the PEPP will go towards corporate debt versus sovereign bonds. The ECB has already loosened the country and issuer limit restrictions it has imposed on its existing Asset Purchase Program (APP), however, which means that the central bank will be very flexible with the PEPP purchases. That means helping reduce sovereign risk premiums in Peripheral Europe by buying greater amounts of Italian, Spanish and even Greek government debt. That also likely means buying more corporate debt in the most stressed sectors of the euro area economy, as needed. Greater ECB bond purchases would make euro area investment grade credit – which has seen some value restored after the recent bout of spread widening - more attractive over both tactical and strategic investment horizons. This is true even with much of the euro area now in a deep recession because of COVID-19 lockdowns, which has already been discounted in the poor investment performance of euro area corporates. Greater ECB bond purchases would make euro area investment grade credit – which has seen some value restored after the recent bout of spread widening - more attractive over both tactical and strategic investment horizons. Year-to-date, euro area corporate credit markets have been hit hard by the global credit selloff (Table 1). In total return terms denominated in euros, the Bloomberg Barclays euro area investment grade corporate bond index is down -5.0% so far in 2020. The numbers are slightly better relative to duration-matched euro area government bonds (the pure credit component), with the index excess return down -5.5% year-to-date. At the broad sector level, the laggards so far in 2020 have been the sectors most exposed to the sharp downturn in European (and global) economic growth. In excess return terms, the worst performing sectors year-to-date within the eleven major groupings shown in Table 1 have been Consumer Cyclicals (-8.5%), Transportation (-8.1%), Energy (-7.2%). The best performing sectors are those that would be categorized as less cyclical and more “defensive”, like Utilities (-4.3%), Technology (-4.3%) and Financials (-4.7%). In many ways, this is a mirror image of 2019, when Consumer Cyclicals and Transportation were among the top performers while Technology was the worst performer. Table 1Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Bond Returns Chart 4Euro Area Corporate Spreads Are Relatively Subdued Vs. Past Credit Cycles When looking at the differences in spreads between credit tiers in the euro area, the gaps are not as wide as in the US (Chart 4). The index spread on Baa-rated euro area corporates is only 44bps above that of Aa-rated credit, far below the 100bps gap seen at the peak of the 2001 and 2011 spread widening episodes and well below the 200bps witnessed in 2008. Looking at the difference between Ba-rated and Baa-rated euro area spreads paints a similar picture, with the gap between the highest high-yield credit tier and lowest investment grade credit tier now sitting at 297bps after getting as wide as 431bps in late March – close to the 500bps peak seen in 2011 but far below the 1000bps levels seen in 2001 and 2007 The broad conclusion looking strictly at credit tiers is that euro area corporates have cheapened up a bit during the COVID-19 selloff, but on a more modest scale compared to previous euro area credit cycles. A similar conclusion is reached when looking at industry-level credit spreads. The broad conclusion looking strictly at credit tiers is that euro area corporates have cheapened up a bit during the COVID-19 selloff, but on a more modest scale compared to previous euro area credit cycles. A similar conclusion is reached when looking at industry-level credit spreads. In Charts 5 & 6, we show the history of option-adjusted spreads (OAS) for the major industrial sub-groupings of the Bloomberg Barclays euro area investment grade corporate indices. Unsurprisingly, spreads look relatively wide for the biggest underperforming sectors like Energy, Consumer Cyclicals and Transportation. The spread widening has been more contained in the better performing sectors like Technology. Chart 5A Mixed Performance For Euro Area Investment Grade Spreads By Industry … Chart 6…. With Spreads Well Below 2001 And 2008 Credit Cycle Peaks When looking at the individual country corporate bond indices within the euro area, the current levels of spreads do not look particularly wide in an historical context. In Chart 7, we show a bar chart of the range of index OAS for the six largest euro area countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria). The current OAS is shown within that historical range. The chart shows that current spreads are in the middle of that range for most countries, suggesting some better value has been restored by the COVID-19 selloff but with spreads remaining relatively subdued compared to past euro area credit cycles.1 Chart 7Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Spreads By Country On a relative basis, investment grade spreads are tightest in France (203bps), the Netherlands (202bps) and Belgium (226bps), and widest in Germany (255bps), Italy (255bps), Austria (251bps) and Spain (234bps). With the ECB already promising greater flexibility in the country allocations of its sovereign bond purchases within the PEPP, Italian corporates may offer the best value within the major euro area countries. With the ECB already promising greater flexibility in the country allocations of its sovereign bond purchases within the PEPP, Italian corporates may offer the best value within the major euro area countries. We can get a better sense of relative corporate bond spread valuation at the country level by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings of those spreads. This is one of the tools we use to assess value in global credit spreads, as measured by historical “spread cushions”. Specifically, we calculate how much spread widening is required over a one-year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds versus duration-matched government debt. We then show those breakeven spreads as a percentile ranking versus its own history, to allow comparisons over periods with differing underlying spread volatility. In Charts 8 & 9, we show the 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings for Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Austria. On this basis, the current level of spreads looks most historically attractive in Germany, Italy and France, with the breakeven spread in the upper quartile versus its history dating back to the year 2000. Spreads in Spain, Belgium and Austria also look relatively wide versus their own history, but to a lesser extent than in Germany, France and Italy. Chart 8German, Italian & French Investment Grade Corporates Offer Better Value On A Breakeven Spread Basis …. Chart 9… Than Spanish, Belgian & Austrian Investment Grade Corporates Chart 10Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Spreads Are Relatively Wide Across All Credit Tiers So while there are some modest differences in value to exploit within the euro area investment grade corporate bond universe at the country level, there is less to choose from across credit tiers. The 12-month breakeven spreads for Aaa-rated, Aa-rated, A-rated and Baa-rated euro area corporates are all within the upper quartiles of their own history (Chart 10). One other tool we can use to assess value across euro area investment grade corporates is our sector relative value framework. Borrowing from the methodology used by our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy to assess US investment grade corporates, the sector relative value framework determines “fair value” spreads for each of the major and minor industry level sub-indices of the overall euro area investment grade universe. The methodology takes each sector's individual OAS and regresses it in a cross-sectional regression with all other sectors. The independent variables in the model are each sector's duration, trailing 12-month spread volatility, and credit rating - the primary risk factors for any corporate bond. Using the common coefficients from that regression, a risk-adjusted "fair value" spread is calculated. The difference between the actual OAS and fair value OAS is our valuation metric used to inform our sector allocation ranking. The latest output from the euro area relative value spread model can be found in Table 2. We also show the duration-times-spread (DTS) for each sector in those tables, which we use as the primary way to measure the riskiness (volatility) of each sector. The scatterplot in Chart 11 shows the tradeoff between the valuation residual from our model and each sector's DTS. Table 2Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation We can then apply individual sector weights based on the model output and our desired level of overall spread risk to come up with a recommended credit portfolio. The weights are determined at our discretion and are not the output from any quantitative portfolio optimization process. The only constraints are that all sector weights must add to 100% (i.e. the portfolio is fully invested with no use of leverage) and the overall level of spread risk (DTS) must equal our desired target. The strongest overweight candidates (a DTS score equal to or greater than that of the overall index with the highest positive valuation residual) are the following euro area investment grade sectors: Packaging, Tobacco, Other Industrials, Media Entertainment, Supermarkets, Integrated Energy, Consumer Cyclical Services and all non-bank Financials (Insurance, REITs, Brokerages and Finance Companies). Against the current backdrop of euro area corporate spreads offering relatively wide spreads on a breakeven spread basis, and with the ECB providing a highly accommodative monetary backdrop that includes more purchases of both government and corporate debt, we think targeting an overall portfolio DTS greater than that of the euro area investment grade corporate bond index is reasonable. On that basis, we are looking to go overweight sectors with relatively higher DTS and positive risk-adjusted spread residuals from our relative value model (and vice versa). Those overweight candidates would ideally be located in the upper right quadrant of Chart 11. Chart 11Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Valuation Versus Risk Based on the latest output from the relative value model, the strongest overweight candidates (a DTS score equal to or greater than that of the overall index with the highest positive valuation residual) are the following euro area investment grade sectors: Packaging, Tobacco, Other Industrials, Media Entertainment, Supermarkets, Integrated Energy, Consumer Cyclical Services and all non-bank Financials (Insurance, REITs, Brokerages and Finance Companies). The least attractive sectors within this framework (negative risk-adjusted valuations) are: Senior Bank Debt, Natural Gas, Other Utilities, Metals and Mining, Chemicals, Construction Machinery, Lodging, Cable and Satellite, Restaurants, Food/Beverage, Health Care, Oil Field Services, Building Materials and Aerospace/Defense. Bottom Line: European investment grade corporate debt has seen significant spread widening over the past month, but spreads should stabilize with the ECB introducing a new asset purchase program with fewer restrictions. Upgrade euro area investment grade corporates to neutral from underweight on both a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Favor debt from beaten-up sectors that are already priced for severe economic weakness like Energy, Transportation and non-bank Financials.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For the Netherlands, there is a much shorter history of corporate bond index data available from Bloomberg Barclays than the other euro area countries shown in Chart 7. The OAS range only encompasses about seven years of data, while the other countries go back as far as the early 2000s. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights The potential range of book value outcomes for large banks is enormous, … : Total credit losses will be a function of the virus’ persistence, the intensity and duration of the social distancing actions taken to combat it, and the efficacy of monetary and fiscal policy measures meant to mitigate the economic pain. … making it almost impossible to assess their equity valuations: With the uncertainty around each of the three independent variables, estimating default rates and recovery rates is a guessing game. This is the most sudden recession on record, … : Nearly 10 million people have filed initial jobless claims in the last two weeks, more than the average over the first 26 weeks of the last seven recessions. … but the biggest banks have entered it on more stable footing than they typically would, and they have a few things going for them: The biggest banks are nowhere near as extended as they typically are after expansions, with unusually conservative asset portfolios and a large stockpile of equity capital. Feature “It depends” is always the answer to quite a few questions in economics, but right now, it’s the answer to just about all of them. Global economic activity is hostage to the COVID-19 outbreak, and the social distancing measures that have been implemented in an attempt to impede its progress. No one can say for sure how long those measures will have to remain in place, though their impact has been starkly apparent on the broad swath of businesses that they have rendered unviable. Non-essential retailers, pro sports leagues, movie theaters, concert venues, gyms, barbers, nail salons, bars and restaurants have had their revenue streams cut off entirely. Nearly all of them have some fixed costs: rent if they don’t own their space; maintenance, mortgage payments and property taxes if they do. Table 1A Half-Year Of Jobless Claims In Two Weeks Monthly rent and mortgage obligations pose a thorny issue for the banking system, because they could lead to a surge of defaults among retailers and their landlords. The unprecedentedly rapid rise in unemployment (Table 1) could trigger a tsunami of home mortgage, credit card and auto loan delinquencies. Congress, the Fed, and various executive-branch departments and agencies are doing their best to protect the individuals and businesses sucked into the vortex, but the ultimate success of their efforts is uncertain. That uncertainty makes it impossible to project the SIFI banks’ credit losses within a reasonably useful confidence interval. To take an extreme example, what if the collateral securing auto loans were reduced to its scrap value because consumers developed an aversion to previously-owned vehicles? Getting less far-fetched, what if all used cars had to be marked down by 20 or 30% to entice drivers to swallow their discomfort, and the value of soon-to-be-vacant homes and apartments faced similar haircuts? Neither is our base-case scenario, but the fact that the markdown scenario is at least plausible illustrates the difficulty of estimating credit losses, and the challenge of coming up with decent estimates of SIFI banks’ earnings and capital adequacy. For the time being, we cannot say if the SIFI banks are better bought or sold at their current prices because we don’t know how 1Q loan-loss provisions will affect their March 31st book value, or what June 30th book might be. Our thinking has evolved in the week since we published Part 1 of this Special Report on the biggest US banks’ vulnerability. Initially, 50 years of Wells Fargo’s financials led us to believe that the SIFI bank de-rating over the last month and a half was excessive, and we concluded that buying SIFI banks at or below their December 31st tangible book value provided investors with a significant margin of safety. The chance to buy at or below tangible book would be a gift even in a bad recession, but the current episode threatens to go well beyond bad. Though we still lean to buying the SIFIs rather than selling them, we now recommend that investors watch and wait before committing, as they should with risk assets more generally. We hold to that bias because our review of system-wide data revealed ample instances of how the largest banks have entered this recession in better shape than normal. We also take heart from the idea that the Fed and elected officials will vigorously pursue policies that directly and indirectly benefit the banks. The banking system is considerably more solid than it was ahead of the 2007-8 crisis. It’s not immune to the shocks that are roiling the economy, but it will not be a driver of them. A Lack Of Banking Excesses Back in 2007, the last time that a recession/financial crisis was taking aim at the US, a bank-examiner-turned-analyst told us that, “Banks create value on the liability side of the balance sheet [via deposits], and destroy it on the asset side.” At the time, the destruction was centered on subprime mortgages and the securities they spawned, but the story plays itself out in every cycle. Bad loans are made in good times, as bankers let their guard down after an extended period of low defaults and market share takes precedence over lending standards. Banks exercised more restraint over the last 10-plus years than they have in any prior postwar expansion. 11 years of zero- and negative-interest-rate policy have promoted plenty of credit excesses, as many investors have gone far afield in search of yield. Bond covenants have been shredded, and corporate leverage has duly risen. Yet banks have largely stayed out of the fray. Bank lending grew at a markedly slower rate between July 2009 and February 2020 than it has in any other postwar expansion1 (Chart 1, top panel). Chart 1An Especially Restrained Expansion Total loan growth slid all the way to 3.8% annualized versus 9.7% in prior postwar expansions. While real estate lending slowed the most, following the frenzy that precipitated the 2007-8 crisis (Chart 1, bottom panel), C&I (Chart 1, second panel) and consumer lending (Chart 1, third panel) also fell well short of their postwar expansion pace, and only consumer lending failed to set a new postwar expansion low (Table 2). From the examiner-analyst’s perspective, banks behaved less self-destructively in the last ten-plus years than they have in any other postwar expansion. Regulatory efforts to curb banking excesses really did get some traction. Table 2Core Bank Lending Growth During Expansions Setting An Uncharacteristically Good Example Historically, the largest banks are at the center of the excesses that make the banking system vulnerable and help set the stage for crises. It wasn’t a community banker, after all, who smugly declared that countries don’t go bust after having plunged headfirst into lending to shaky Latin American governments. It has been the biggest players who have hatched dubious financial innovations and scaled them to the extremes that trigger systemic rumbles. Since the 2007-8 crisis, however, the biggest banks have demonstrated uncommon restraint. As we noted in Part 1, loan-to-deposit ratios around 100% and above are a sign of instability because they have to be funded with capital flows that are here today but gone tomorrow. Lower loan-to-deposit ratios hold down profits, but they buffer banks’ exposure to the business cycle, provided that deposit funding isn’t diverted to uses that are riskier than straightforward loans. The FDIC and the Fed maintain data series that offer insight into different-sized banks’ use of their lending capacity. The FDIC’s Quarterly Banking Profile, published since the mid-‘90s, breaks out total system loan-to-deposit ratios into categories based on the size of individual banks’ assets. Using its data, we were able to compare the largest banks’ activity with all other FDIC-insured banks’ activity since 1997. The comparison showed that the largest banks performed an about-face after the subprime crisis, going from operating with uniformly higher loan-to-deposit ratios than all other banks to operating with uniformly – and significantly – lower loan-to-deposit ratios (Chart 2). Chart 2The Biggest Banks Are Using Less Of Their Lending Capacity ... The Fed’s commercial bank balance sheet data covering large and small banks extend back another decade. The data do not align perfectly with the FDIC’s, as the Fed’s large-bank subset (the top 25 banks by assets) has been broader than the FDIC’s since 2016 (top 9 or 10 banks) and was narrower in prior years (the FDIC’s top subset included 66 to 119 banks). The Fed’s data do not show large banks making fuller use of their deposit capacity in the ‘90s and most of last decade, but they echo the post-2007-8 drop-off in the FDIC data (Chart 3). The biggest banks have operated with less risk under the Basel 3/Dodd-Frank/Volcker Rule regime, allocating less of their capacity to loans, and considerably more to Treasuries, agencies and cash (Chart 4). Chart 3... No Matter How They're Defined ... Chart 4... And They're Directing It To Safer, More Liquid Assets Banks Are Better Capitalized Than They Used To Be The overall banking system is operating with considerably less leverage than it did in the ‘80s or ‘90s, as equity capital now accounts for 12% of total assets (Chart 5). Wells Fargo’s leverage history as shown in Part 1 suggests that banks were even more thinly capitalized in the ‘70s. An increased proportion of equity capital makes a bank more resilient to loan losses and other operational stumbles. Critically for the stability of the system, the SIFI banks are forced to maintain additional capital buffers. The combination of increased equity capital and increased holdings of liquid assets with little to no credit risk like Treasury and agency securities has made all of the largest banks safer. Chart 5Increased Equity Financing Has Made Banks More Resilient Some Fears Seem Overblown We reiterate from Part 1 that larger banks do not borrow short to lend long, and have not for a long time. According to the latest Quarterly Banking Profile, barely a sixth of the 4,400 banks with assets of less than $1 billion report having any derivatives exposure. A considerable majority of community banks must therefore take their asset and liability maturity profiles as given, leaving them exposed to the vagaries of shifts in the yield curve. No management team at a decently-sized publicly traded bank would dare to run anything more than a very narrow mismatch in asset and liability duration, however, as evidenced by the gargantuan interest-rate swaps market. Bank stocks may trade with 10-year Treasury yields, but the slope of the curve has very little bearing on bank earnings.2 During recessions, banks usually encounter more customers trying to park money than businesses trying to borrow it.  Unused loan commitments have provoked much agita among investors in recent weeks. A floundering company, desperately trying to stay afloat, may well draw down all of its available credit lines. Line drawdowns could force banks to make good on loan commitments made in better times that now have little prospect of repayment. While they do not appear to have been a significant issue in the ’90-’91 or 2001 recessions, lines were drawn down sharply in 2007-8 (Chart 6). Chart 6Much Ado About Nothing? The positive news for banks is that their exposure to untapped commitments is considerably smaller than it was heading into the last recession. They may also be less likely to be drawn, thanks to multiple Fed initiatives aimed at ensuring the availability of credit, like its ambitious plan to backstop investment-grade corporate borrowers, and the CARES Act’s expansion of Small Business Administration funding and provision of loans and loan guarantees for ailing companies in industries related to national security. There are going to be considerably more strapped borrowers, but they will have more non-bank avenues to obtain funding than they have had in prior recessions. Banks know that line demand may spike soon after the business cycle peaks; they reserve for unused commitments and will not be caught entirely unawares. Finally, not all of the unused commitments are to suffering C&I borrowers that investors most fear; Wells Fargo’s commitment history suggests that the largest share of the outstanding commitments are to individual credit card borrowers. Despite rising distress, lending has increased at a fairly modest rate during recessions, as households and businesses broadly shrink from risk, while deposits have grown at a faster rate, as the safety of FDIC-insured accounts gains appeal (Table 3). We do not expect that increased consumption of credit line capacity will materially alter the banking system’s credit exposures. Table 3Core Bank Lending And Deposit Growth During Recessions Investment Implications The banking system, anchored by the SIFI banks, is in considerably better shape now than it was in 2007, and does not pose an active threat to the financial system this time around. The banking system is not only better capitalized than it has been in the past, but large banks have invested far more conservatively. We cannot assess how expensive SIFI stocks are without having a better handle on potential loan losses, however, and we need to get a sense at how successful the Fed’s and Congress’ interventions to stem the building economic distress will be. We hope for the best, but the last-mile issues are complicated, and we expect that the mitigation efforts will have to work out some kinks before they begin to get traction. Don't worry about the banks, but give it some time before buying them. Congress and the Fed are trying to perform challenging new routines, and it's unlikely they'll stick the landing on their first try. Table 4Comfortably In The Money Our no-rush-to-buy take on the broad market applies to the SIFI banks, as well. We have high conviction that Congress and the administration will do whatever it takes to shore up the most vulnerable parts of the economy as they reveal themselves, and the Fed has already moved to a war footing. Stocks can go lower as they climb the learning curve, and may have to do so to signal the need for further intervention. We would not be concerned in the slightest if the SIFI banks were to cut or suspend their dividends. Husbanding cash is a good idea in times of uncertainty, and a couple of quarters without dividends is far preferable to shareholders than a dilutive secondary equity offering or rights issue. To the extent that it may leave elected officials more favorably disposed to the banking sector, it would be a plus. One may as well stay on the good side of legislators doling out goodies. Finally, our newly increased sense of caution does not extend to the put-writing idea we detailed two weeks ago. If implied volatility in the SIFI banks’ stocks returns to the triple-digit level, investors selling put options would be generously compensated for assuming the inherent risks. Even though the SIFIs have stumbled over the last six sessions, time decay and the steep decline in the VIX have the contracts we highlighted well in the money (Table 4).   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Until the NBER makes the official designation, our working assumption is that the recession began in March. 2 Please see the February 28, 2011 US Investment Strategy Special Report, "Banks And The Yield Curve," available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Recommended Allocation The outlook for markets over the next few months is highly uncertain. On the optimistic side, new COVID-19 cases are probably close to peaking (for now), and so equities could continue to rally. But there are many risks too. Growth numbers will be horrendous for some months. Second-round effects (corporate defaults, problems in EM and with euro zone banks, for example) will emerge. We recommend a balanced portfolio, robust both for risk-on rallies and a further sell-off. We stay overweight equities versus bonds. Government bonds will not provide significantly positive returns even in a severe recession. Thus, over the next 12-months, equities are likely to outperform them. But we leaven the equity overweight with a “minimum volatility” strategy, overweight the low-beta US market, and more stable sectors such as Healthcare and Technology. Within bonds, we stay underweight government bonds, and raise Investment Grade credit to overweight, given the Fed’s backstop. Even in a risk-on rally, government yields will not rise quickly so we recommend a neutral stance on duration. The massive stimulus will eventually be inflationary, so we recommend TIPS, which are very cheaply valued. We are overweight cash and gold as hedges against further market turbulence. Among alternatives, macro hedge funds and farmland look attractively defensive now. We would start to look for opportunities in private debt (especially distressed debt) as the recession advances. Commodity futures are attractive as an inflation hedge. Overview Playing The Optionality From the start of the crisis, we argued that markets would bottom around the time when new cases of COVID-19 peaked. At the end of March, there were clear signs that this would happen in April, with Italy and Spain having probably already peaked and the US, if it follows the same trajectory, being only two or three weeks away (Chart 1). Chart 1Close To A Peak In New Cases? But what happens next? A relief rally is likely, as often happens in bear markets – and indeed one probably started with the three-day 18% rise in US equities in the last week of March. Note, for example, the strong rallies in spring 2008 and summer 2000 before the second leg down in those bear markets (Chart 2). Chart 2Mid Bear Market Rallies Are Common However, there is still a lot of potential bad news for markets to digest. Global growth has collapsed, as a result of people in many countries being forced to stay at home. US GDP growth in Q2 could fall by as much as 10% quarter-on-quarter (unannualized). Horrendously bad data will come as a shock to investors over the coming months. Despite the unprecedented stimulus measures from central banks and governments worldwide (Chart 3), nasty second-round effects are inevitable. Given the high level of corporate debt in the US, defaults will rise, to perhaps above the level of 2008-9 (Chart 4). EM borrowers have almost $4 trillion of foreign-currency debt outstanding, and will struggle to service this after the rise in the dollar and wider credit spreads. Euro area banks are poorly capitalized and have high non-performing debt levels left over from the last recession; they will be hit by a new wave of bankruptcies. Undoubtedly, there are some banks and hedge funds sitting on big trading losses after the drastic sell-off and stomach-churning volatility. Mid-East sovereign wealth funds will unload more assets to fill fiscal holes left by the collapsed oil price. Chart 3Massive Stimulus Everywhere Chart 4Possible Second-Round Effects     There is also the question of when the pandemic will end. We are not epidemiologists, so find this hard to judge (but please refer to the answers from an authority in our recent Special Report1). The coronavirus will disappear only when either enough people in a community have had the disease to produce “herd immunity,” or there is a vaccine – which is probably 18 months away.  Some epidemiologists argue that in the UK and Italy 40%-60% of the population may have already had COVID-19 and are therefore immune.2 But an influential paper from researchers at Imperial College suggested that repeated periods of lockdown will be necessary each time a new wave of cases emerges3 (Chart 5). Chart 5More Waves Of The Pandemic To Come? At the end of March, global equities were only 23% off their mid-February record high – and were down only 34% even at their low point. That doesn’t seem like enough to fully discount all the potential pitfalls over coming months. This sort of highly uncertain environment is where portfolio construction comes in. We recommend that clients position their portfolios with optionality to remain robust in any likely outcome. There are likely to be rallies in risk assets over coming months, particularly when the coronavirus shows signs of petering out. There is significant asymmetric career risk for portfolio managers here. No portfolio manager will be fired for missing the pandemic and underperforming year-to-date (though some may because their firms go out of business or retrench). But a PM who misses a V-shaped rebound in risk assets over the rest of the year could lose their job.  This will provide a strong incentive to try to pick the bottom. Chart 6Bond Yields Can't Go Much Lower Government bond yields are close to their theoretical lows. The 10-year US Treasury yield is 0.6% and it unlikely to fall below 0% even in a severe recession (since the Fed has stated that it will not cut short-term rates below 0%). In other countries, the low for yields has turned out to be around -0.3% to -0.9% (Chart 6). The total return from risk-free bonds, therefore, will be close to zero even in a dire economic environment (Table 1). This means that the call between bonds and equities comes down to whether equity prices will be higher or lower in 12-months. Quite likely, they will be higher. Given this, and the optionality of participating in rebounds, we maintain our overweight on equities versus bonds. We would, however, be inclined to lower our equity weighting in the event of a big rally in stocks over the next few months.   Table 1Not Much Room For Upside From Bonds Table 2Bear Markets Are Often Much Worse But there are also many downside risks. In the past two recessions, global equities fell by 50%-60% (Table 2). Despite the much worse economic environment this time, the peak-to-trough decline is so far much more limited. Moreover, valuations are not particularly compelling yet (Chart 7). To leaven our overall overweight on equities, we recommend a “minimum volatility” strategy, with tilts towards the low-beta US market, and some more defensive sectors such as Healthcare and Technology. China and China-related stocks also look somewhat attractive, since that country got over the coronavirus first, and is responding with a big increase in infrastructure spending (Chart 8). To hedge against downside risk, we also leave in place our overweights in cash and gold. Chart 7Equities Are Not Yet Super Cheap Chart 8China Infra Spending To Rise Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking – About The Coronavirus Have We Seen The Bottom In Equity Markets?  Chart 9Watch Closely COVID-19 After hitting a low on March 23, global equities have recovered more than one-third of their loss during this particularly rapid bear market, in response to the massive monetary and fiscal stimulus around the globe. It’s very hard to pinpoint the exact bottom of any equity bear market.  The current one is particularly difficult in two ways: First, it was largely due to the exogenous shock from the COVID-19 pandemic. If history is any guide, we will first need to see a peak in infected cases globally before we can call a true bottom in equities (Chart 9). Second, the massive and coordinated response from central banks and governments around the world is unprecedented, as the global “lockdown” freezes the global economy. It’s encouraging to see the Chinese PMI bouncing back to 52 in March after a sharp drop to deep contraction level in February. However, the bounce back was mostly from production. Both export orders and imports remain weak. US initial jobless claims have skyrocketed to 3.3 million. If the peak of infection in the US follows similar patterns in China and Italy, then it would be another encouraging sign even if the US economic data continued to get worse. BCA Research’s base-case is for this recession to have a U-shaped recovery. This means that equity markets are likely to be range bound until we have a better handle on the future course of the pandemic. As such, we suggest investors actively manage risk by adding to positions when the S&P 500 gets close to 2250 and reducing risk when it gets close to 2750 during the bottoming process. What Will Be The Long-Term Consequences? Maybe it seems too early to think about this, but the coronavirus pandemic will change the world at least as profoundly as did the 1970s inflation, 9/11, and the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Here are some things that might change: Chart 10Government Debt Will Rise Significantly Government debt levels will rise dramatically, as a result of the huge fiscal packages being (rightly) implemented by many countries. In the US, after the $2 trillion spending increase and a fall in tax revenues, the annual fiscal deficit will rise from 6% of GDP to 15%-20%. Government debt/GDP could exceed the 122% reached at the end of WW2 (Chart 10). Ultimately, central banks will have to monetize this debt, perhaps by capping long-term rates or by buying a substantial part of issuance. This could prove to be inflationary. Households and companies may want to build in greater cushions and no longer live “on the edge”. US households have repaired their balance-sheets since 2009, raising the savings rate to 8% (Chart 11). But surveys suggest that almost one-third of US households have less than $1,000 in savings. They may, therefore, now save more. This could depress consumption further in coming years. Companies have maximized profitability over the past decades, under pressure from shareholders, by keeping inventories, spare cash, and excess workers to a minimum. Given the sudden stop caused by the pandemic (and who is to say that there will not be more pandemics in future), companies may want to protect themselves from future shocks. The inventory/sales ratio, which had been falling for decades, has picked up a little since the GFC (Chart 12). Inventory levels are likely to be raised further. Companies may also run less leveraged balance-sheets, rather than hold the maximum amount of debt their targeted credit rating can bear. This is all likely to reduce long-term profit growth. Chart 11Households May Become Even More Cautious Chart 12Companies Will Run With Higher Inventories The pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of healthcare systems. China still spends only 5% of GDP on health, compared to 9% in Brazil and 8% in South Africa (Chart 13). The lack of intensive care beds and woefully inadequate epidemic plans in the US and other developed countries will also need to be tackled. Healthcare stocks should benefit. Chart 13Healthcare Spending Will Need To Rise How Risky Are Euro Area Banks? Chart 14Euro Area Banks Are Quite Fragile Banks in the euro area have underperformed their developed market peers by over 65% since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) (Chart 14, panel 1). Their structural issues – many of which we highlighted in a previous Special Report – remain unsolved.  Euro area banks remain highly leveraged compared to their US counterparts (panel 2). Their exposure to emerging economies is high (panel 3), and they continue to be a major provider of European corporate funding. US corporates, by contrast, are mainly funded through capital markets. The sector is also highly fragmented with both outward and inward M&A activity declining post the GFC. Profitability continues to be a key long-term concern, despite having recently stabilized (panel 4). The ECB’s ultra-dovish monetary stance and negative policy rates do not help banks’ performance either.  Banks’ relative return has been correlated to the ECB policy rate since the GFC (panel 5). Following the coronavirus outbreak, the ECB is likely to remain dovish for a prolonged period. The ECB’s recently announced measures should, however, provide banks with ample liquidity to hold and spur economic activity through increased lending to households and corporates. Absent consolidation in the European banking sector, competition is likely to dampen banks’ profits. Additionally, the severity of the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus outbreak will determine if their significant exposure to emerging economies, the energy sector, and domestic corporates will hurt them further. For now, we would recommend investors underweight euro area banks. Where Can I Get Income In This Low-Yield World? Chart 15The Bear Market Has Unveiled Attractive Income Opportunities For long-term investors who can tolerate price volatility, there is currently an opportunity to invest in high-income securities at relatively cheap prices. Below we list three of our favorite assets to obtain income returns: Dividend Aristocrats: The S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index is composed of S&P 500 companies which have increased dividend payouts for 25 consecutive years or more. In order to provide such a steady stream of income through a such long timeframe, and even provide dividend increases in recessions, the companies in this index need to have a track record of running cashflow-rich businesses. Thus, the risk of dividend cuts is relatively low in these companies. Currently, the Dividend Aristocrat Index has a trailing dividend yield of 3.2% (Chart 15 – top panel). Fallen Angels: As we discussed in our November Special Report, fallen angels have attractive characteristics that separate them from the rest of the junk market. They tend to have longer maturities as well as a higher credit quality than the overall index. Crucially, fallen angels often enter the high-yield index at a discount, since certain institutional investors are forced to sell them when they are no longer IG-rated (middle panel). Thus, selected fallen angels which are not at a substantial risk of default could be a tremendous income opportunity. Currently fallen angels have a yield to worst of 10.65%. Sovereign US dollar EM debt: Our Emerging Markets Strategy service has argued that most EM sovereigns are unlikely to default on their debts, and instead will use their currencies as a release valve to ease financial conditions in their economies. Thus, hard-currency sovereign issues could prove to be attractive income investments if held to maturity. The bottom panel of Chart 15 (panel 3) shows the current yield-to-worst of the EM sovereign hard currency debt that has an overweight rating by our Emerging Markets service. Global Economy Chart 16The Collapse Begins Overview: The global economy in early January looked on the cusp of a strong manufacturing pickup, driven by the natural cycle and by moderate fiscal stimulus out of China. The coronavirus changed all that. We now face a recession of a severity unseen since the 1930s. The fiscal and monetary response has been similarly rapid and radical. This will tackle immediate liquidity and even solvency risks. But, with consumers in many countries confined to their homes, a recovery is entirely dependent on when the number of new cases of COVID-19 peaks. In an optimistic scenario, this might be in late April or May. On a pessimistic one, the pandemic will continue in waves for several quarters.  US: It is highly likely that the NBER will eventually declare that the US entered recession in March 2020. With many states in lockdown, consumption (which comprises 70% of GDP) will slump: only half of consumption is non-discretionary (rent, food, utility bills etc.); the other half is likely to shrink significantly while lockdowns continue. Judged by the 3.3 million initial claims in the week of March 16-21, unemployment will jump from its February level of 3.5% very rapidly towards 10%. Fiscal and monetary stimulus measures will cushion the downside (enabling households to pay rent and companies to service debt). But whether the recession is V-shaped or prolonged will be dependent on the length of the pandemic. Euro Area: European manufacturing growth was showing clear signs of picking up before the coronavirus pandemic hit (Chart 16 panel 1). But lockdowns in Italy, Spain and other countries will clearly push growth way into negative territory. The severity is clear from the first datapoints to reflect March activity, such as the ZEW survey. The ECB, after an initially disappointing response, has promised EUR750 billion (and more if needed) in bond purchases. The fiscal response so far has been more lukewarm, although Germany has now scrapped its requirement to run a budget surplus. One key question: will the stronger nothern European economies agree to “euro bonds”, joint and severally guaranteed, to finance fiscal spending in the weaker periphery?   Chart 17...With Chinese Data Leading The Way Japan: Japan’s economy was performing poorly even before the coronavirus pandemic, mainly because of the side-effects of last October’s consumption tax hike, and the slowdown in China (Chart 17, panel 2). So far, Japan has seen fewer cases of COIVD-19 than other large countries, but this may just reflect a lack of testing. Japan also has less room for policy response. Government debt is already 250% of GDP. The Bank of Japan has moderately increased purchases of equity ETFs and remains committed to maintaining government bonds yields around 0%. But Japan seems culturally and institutionally unable to roll out the sort of ultra-radical measures taken in other developed economies. Emerging Markets: China’s economy was severely disrupted in January and February, as reflected in an unprecedented collapse of the Caixin Services PMI to 26.5 (Chart 17, panel 3). However, big data (such as traffic congestion) suggest that in March people were gradually returning to work and companies restarting manufacturing operations. Q1 GDP growth will clearly be negative, and growth for the year may be barely above 0%. The authorities are ramping up infrastructure spending, which BCA expects to grow by 6-8% this year.4 Interest rates have also fallen below their 2015 levels, but not yet to their 2009 lows. Both fiscal and monetary policy are likely to be eased further. Elsewhere in Emerging Markets, the key question is whether central banks will cut rates to support rapidly weakening economies, or keep rates steady to prop up collapsing currencies. This is not an easy choice. Interest Rates: Central banks in developed markets have cut rates to their lowest possible levels with the Fed, for example, slashing from 1.25%-1.5% to 0%-0.25% within just 10 days in March. The Fed has signalled that it will not go below zero. Short-term policy rates globally, therefore, have essentially hit their lower bounds. Long-term rates have been volatile, with the 10-year US Treasury yield swinging down to 0.6% before jumping to 1.2%. While uncertainty continues, long-term risk-free rates are unlikely to rise substantially and, in the event of a prolonged severe recession, we would see the US 10-year yield falling to zero – but no lower. Global Equities Chart 18Is The V-Shaped Recovery Sustainable? What’s Next?  Global equities lost 32.8% year-to-date as of March 23, 2020. All countries and sectors in our coverage were in the red. Even the best performing country (Japan) and the best performing global sector (Consumer Staples) lost 26.7% and 23.2% respectively.  From March 24 to March 26, however, equities made the best three-day gains since the Great Depression, recouping about one-third of the loss,  even though US initial jobless claims came in at 3.3 million and also the US reported a higher number of cumulative infected people than China, with a much higher number of deaths per million people (Chart 18). So have we reached the bottom of the bear market? Is this “V-shaped” recovery sustainable? How should an investor construct a multi-asset global portfolio that’s sound for the next 9-12 months given the uncertainty associated with COVID-19 and the massive monetary and fiscal stimulus around the world? Based on our long-held philosophy of taking risks where risks will most likely be rewarded, we are most comfortable taking risk at the asset class level, by overweighting equities versus bonds, together with overweights in cash and gold as hedges. Within the equity portfolio, we are reducing risk by making the following adjustments: Upgrade US to overweight from underweight financed by downgrading the euro zone to underweight from overweight. Upgrade Tech to overweight, while closing two overweight bets on Financials and Energy and one underweight on consumer staples to benchmark weighting.   Country Allocation: Becoming More Defensive Chart 19US And Euro Area: Trading Places In December 2019 we added risk by upgrading the euro area to overweight and Emerging Markets to neutral based on our macro view that the global economy was on its way to recovery.  Data releases in January did show signs of recovery in the global economy. However, the COVID-19 outbreak has changed the global landscape, and we are clearly in a recession now.  When conditions change, we change our recommendations. We must make a judgment call because the economic data will not give us any timely, useful readings for some time to come. Back in December, the key reason to upgrade the euro area was the recovery of China which flows into the exports of the euro area. We think China will continue to stimulate its economy. However, given the global growth collapse, the “flow through” effect to the euro area will be delayed for some time. We prefer to play the China effect directly rather than indirectly. That’s why we maintain the neutral weighting of EM versus DM, but downgrade the euro area to underweight, and upgrade US to overweight. We also note the two following factors: First, as shown in Chart 19, panel 1, the relative performance between the euro area and the US is highly correlated with the relative performance between global Financials and Technology. This is not surprising given the sector composition of the two region’s equity indices. As such, this country adjustment is in line with our sector adjustment of upgrading Technology and downgrading Financials. Second, with a lower beta, US equities provide a better defense when economic uncertainty and financial market volatility are high. The risk to this adjustment, however, is valuation. As shown in panel 4, euro area valuation is extremely cheap compared to the US. However, PMI releases as well as forward earnings estimates are likely to get worse again before they get better, given the region’s reliance on exports to China and the structural issues in its banking system. Global Sector Allocation: Getting Closer To Benchmark Chart 20Reducing Sector Bets We make four changes in the global sector portfolio to reduce sector bets, since we do not have a high conviction given market volatility and our house view that recovery out of this recession will be U-shaped. These are downgrading Financials to neutral, while upgrading Technology to overweight. We also close the overweight in Energy and underweight in Consumer Staples, leaving them both at benchmark weighting. Financials: We upgraded Financials in October last year as an upside hedge. This move did not pan out as bond yields plummeted. BCA Research’s US Bond Strategy service upgraded duration to neutral from underweight on March 10 as they do not see a high likelihood for yields to move significantly higher over the next 9-12 months. This does not bode well for Financials’ performance (Chart 20, panel 1). Even though the Fed and other central banks have come in as the lenders of last resort, loan growth could be weak going forward and non-performing loans could increase, especially in the euro area. Valuation, however, is very attractive. Technology: DRAM prices started to improve even before the COVID-19 outbreak. The global lockdown to fight against the pandemic is further spurring demand for both software and hardware, which should support better earnings growth (panel 2). The risk is that relative valuation is still not cheap, even though absolute valuation has come down after the recent selloff. Energy:  The outlook for oil prices is too uncertain. The fight between Saudi Arabia and Russia is weighing on the supply side, while the global lockdown is denting demand prospect. The earnings outlook for energy companies is dire, while valuations are very attractive (panel 3). Consumer Staples: This is a classic defensive sector that does well in recessions. In addition, its relative valuation has improved to neutral from very expensive (panel 4).   Government Bonds Chart 21Stay Aside On Duration Upgrade Duration To Neutral. Global bond yields had a wild ride in Q1 as equities plummeted into bear market territory. The 10-year US Treasury yield made an historical low of 0.32% overnight on March 9, then quickly reversed back up to 1.27% on March 18, closing the quarter at 0.67%, compared to 1.88% at the beginning of the quarter (Chart 21). We are already in a recession and BCA’s house view is for a U-shaped recovery. This implies that global bond yields will likely follow a bottoming process similar to global equities, as new infections peak and high-frequency economic data start to recover. As such, we upgrade our duration call to neutral, to be in line with the position of BCA Research’s US Bond Strategy (USBS) service. Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds.  The combined effect of the plummet in oil prices and the coronavirus outbreak has crushed inflation expectation to an extremely low level. As shown in Chart 22, the 10-year breakeven inflation rate is currently at 0.95%, 88 bps lower than its fair value. The fair value is estimated based on USBS’s Adaptive Expectations Model.  Investors with a 12-month investment horizon should continue to favor TIPS over nominal Treasuries, but those with shorter horizons may be advised to stand aside and wait for the daily number of new COVID-19 cases to reach zero before re-initiating the position. Chart 22TIPS Offer A Ton Of Long-Run Value Extremely Cheap Inflation Protection   Corporate Bonds Chart 23High Quality Junk It is undeniable that the dearth of cashflow caused by the lockdowns will spur a ferocious wave of defaults, particularly in the high-yield sector. It also is not clear that this risk is adequately compensated for. Currently, our US bond strategist believes that spreads are pricing an 11% default rate – in line with the default rate of the 2000/2001 recession. While it is not our base case, a default cycle like 2008, where 14% of companies in the index defaulted is a very clear possibility, as revenues have ground to a halt. However, several positive factors in the junk space must also be considered. Roughly 1% of the high-yield index matures in less than one year, which means that refinancing risk for junk credits should remain relatively subdued (Chart 23, top panel). Moreover, the quality of junk bonds is relatively high compared to previous periods of stress: when the market peaked in 2000 and 2007, Ba-rated credit (the highest quality of high yield) stood at 30% and 37% of the overall index respectively (middle panel). Today this credit quality stands at 49% of the high yield market, indicating a relatively healthier credit profile for junk. Additionally, the high-risk energy sector, which is likely to experience a substantial amount of defaults given the collapse in oil prices, now represents less than 8% of the market capitalization of the whole index (bottom panel). Taking these positive factors into consideration, we believe that a downgrade to underweight is not warranted, and instead we are downgrading high-yield credit from overweight to neutral. What about the investment-grade space? the massive stimulus package announced by the Fed, which effectively allows IG issuers to roll over their entire stock of debt, should provide a backstop to this market. One valid concern is that credit agencies can still downgrade a large number of issuers, making them ineligible to receive support. However, it seems that the credit agencies are aware of how much hinges on their ratings, and are communicating that they will factor the measures taken by various government programs into their credit analysis.5 Thus, considering that spreads are already extended, the Fed is providing unprecedent support and credit agencies are unlikely to knock out many companies out of investment-grade ratings, we are upgrading investment-grade credit from neutral to overweight.   Commodities Chart 24Oil Prices & Politics Do Not Mix Energy (Overweight): Oil markets were driven by supply/demand dynamics until a third factor, politics, shifted the market equilibrium. The recent clash between Saudi Arabia and Russia led to the breakdown of the OPEC 2.0 coalition and to Brent prices tanking by over 60% to $26 in March. The length of this breakdown is unknown. However, we believe the parties are likely to return to the negotiation table within the next months as the damage to countries which are dependent on oil begins to appear. The fiscal budget breakeven point remains much higher than the current oil price – it is around $83 for Saudi Arabia and $47 for Russia. Weakness in global crude demand will continue to put further downward pressure on prices, until economic activity recovers from the COVID-19 slowdown. Our Commodity & Energy Strategists expect the Brent crude oil price to average $36/bbl, with WTI trading some $3-$4 below that, in 2020 (Chart 24, panels 1 & 2). Industrial Metals (Neutral): Industrial metals prices were on track to pick up until the coronavirus hit global activity at the beginning of the year. Prices face further short-term headwinds as global manufacturing remains suppressed. Once the global social distancing ends and activity resumes, industrial metal prices should pick up as fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending, especially in China, is implemented (panel 3). Precious Metals (Neutral):  As the coronavirus spread, global risk assets have tumbled. Over the past 12 months, we have recommended investors increase their allocation to gold as both an inflation hedge and a beneficiary of accommodative monetary policy globally. However, we also recently highlighted that gold was reaching overbought territory and that a pullback was possible in the short-term. Nevertheless, investors should continue to maintain gold exposure to hedge against the eventuality that the pandemic is not contained within the coming weeks (panels 4 & 5).   Currencies Chart 25Competing Forces Pushing The US Dollar In Different Directions The USD has gone through a rollercoaster during the coronavirus crisis. Initially, the DXY fell by 4.8%, as rate differentials moved violently against the dollar when the Fed cut rates to zero. But this fall didn’t last long: as liquidity dried up, the cost for dollar funding surged, causing the dollar to skyrocket by almost 8.3%. Since then, the liquidity measures taken by monetary authorities have made the dollar reverse course once more. At this point there are multiple forces pulling the greenback in opposing directions. On the one hand, the collapse in global growth caused by the shutdowns should push the dollar higher. Moreover, momentum – one of the most reliable directional indicators for the dollar – continues to point to further upside (Chart 25, panels 1 and 2). However, the Fed’s generous USD swap lines with other major central banks as well as the massive pool of liquidity deployed have already stabilized funding costs in European and British currency markets, and look poised to do the same in others (Chart 25, panel 3). Thus, since there is no clarity on which force will prevail in this tug of war, we are remaining neutral on the US dollar. That being said, long-term investors can begin to buy some of the most depressed currencies, such as AUD/USD. This cross is currently trading at a 12% discount to PPP according to the OECD – the steepest discount that this currency has had in 17 years. Additionally, our China Investment Strategy projects that China will accelerate infrastructure investment this year to counteract the negative economic effects of the lockdown. This pick up in investment should increase base-metal demand, proving a boost to the Australian dollar in the process.   Alternatives Chart 26Favor Macro Hedge Funds Over Private Equity During Recessions Intro: The coronavirus outbreak caused tremendous market volatility and huge declines in liquid assets. Many clients have asked over the past few weeks which illiquid assets make sense in the current environment. To answer that, we stick to our usual recommendation framework, dividing illiquid assets into three buckets: Return Enhancers: Over the past year, we have been recommending clients to pare back private-equity exposure and increase allocation to hedge funds – particularly macro hedge funds, which often outperform other risky alternative assets during economic slowdowns and recessions (Chart 26, panel 1). Private debt – particularly distressed debt – could become a beneficiary of the current environment. The market turmoil will leave some assets heavily discounted, which can provide an opportunity for nimble funds to make investments at attractive valuations. In a previous Special Report, we highlighted Business Development Companies (BDCs) as a liquid alternative to direct private lending.6 They have taken a hit over the past month, even compared to equities and junk bonds. However, their recovery as markets bottom is usually significant (panels 2 & 3). Inflation Hedges: The coordinated “whatever-it-takes” stance implemented by global governments and central banks to mitigate the coronavirus crisis is likely to have inflationary consequences in the long-term. In that environment, investors should favor commodity futures over real estate (panel 4). As global growth reaccelerates in response to stimulus and resumed manufacturing activity over the next 12 months, the USD should weaken, and commodity prices should rise. Volatility Dampeners: Timberland and farmland remain our long-time favorite assets within this bucket. We have previously shown that both assets outperform other traditional and alternative assets during recessions and equity bear markets (panel 5). Farmland particularly should fare well in this environment, being more insulated from the economy, given food’s inelastic demand Risks To Our View Chart 27Dollar Would Fall In A Strong Recovery Since our recommendations are based on a middle course, hedging both upside and downside risks, we need to consider how extreme these two eventualities could be. On the upside, the most optimistic scenario would be one in which the coronavirus largely disappears after April or May. The massive amount of fiscal and monetary stimulus would produce a jet-fuelled rally in risk assets. The dollar has soared over the past few weeks, as a risk-off currency (Chart 27), and would likely fall sharply. This would be very positive for commodities and Emerging Markets assets. The strong cyclical recovery would also help euro zone and Japanese equities relative to the more defensive US. Value stocks and small caps would outperform. Chart 28Could It Get Worse Than 2008 - Or Even 1932? Downside risks are less easy to forecast. As Warren Buffet wrote in 2002: “you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.” The shock to the system caused by the coronavirus is certainly larger than the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-9 and could approach that caused by the Great Depression (Chart 28), though hopefully without the egregious policy errors of the latter. It is hard, therefore, to know where problems will emerge: US corporate debt, EM borrowers, and euro zone banks would be our most likely candidates. But there could be others. The oil price is another key uncertainty. Demand could collapse by at least 10% as a result of the severe recession. The breakdown of the production agreement between Saudi Arabia and Russia could produce a supply increase of 4-5%.  Given this, Brent crude would fall to $20 a barrel. That would represent a strong tailwind to global recovery (Chart 29). On the other hand, a rapprochement between Saudi and Russia (and even with regulators in Texas) could push oil prices back up again – a positive for markets such as Canada and Mexico. Chart 29Cheap Oil Boosts Growth   Footnotes 1   Please see BCA Special Report, "Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers," dated 31 March 2020, available at bcaresearch.com 2   https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042291v1 3    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf 4    Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Chinese Economic Stimulus: How Much For Infrastructure And The Property Market,” dated 25th March 2020, available at cis.bcaresarch.com 5    A release by Moody’s on March 25 stated that their actions “will be more tempered for higher-rated companies that are likely to benefit from policy intervention or extraordinary government support.” 6    Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Private Debt: An Investment Primer,” dated June 6, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

Special Report

Highlights Wells Fargo’s path, before and after deregulation, has been similar to every other SIFI bank’s: It began by serving a single area in a single state, expanded within the state, and then pieced together its regional and national footprint via combinations. A review of 50 years of Wells Fargo’s financials offers multiple insights into the way that banking has evolved at the regional and SIFI bank level: Several community banks are at risk amidst the economy’s unprecedentedly sudden stop, but the overall banking system’s health turns on the condition of the regional banks and the SIFIs. Larger banks are far less reliant on lending than they used to be, … : Net interest income has contributed just 53% of Wells Fargo’s revenues since 2009. The banks would prefer wider net interest margins, but narrow ones won’t wreck their earnings power. … have considerably more capital, and are holding more cash, Treasury and agency securities to stabilize the asset side of the balance sheet: The big banks have two sources of additional ballast: more equity capital to absorb losses, and more stable asset portfolios to limit them in the first place. Feature We are top-down researchers at BCA, using macro data to make conclusions about how financial markets will fare against the economic backdrop they’ll face in the future. We also occasionally glean macro insights from micro data, which we are happy to incorporate into our process when it helps augment our understanding. Wells Fargo is a good proxy for the SIFIs and regional banks which make up the heart of the banking system, because it traveled the same serial acquisition path as its peers once prohibitions on interstate banking began to be eased in the mid-‘80s, and were wiped away for good in 1994. Wells Fargo makes all of its annual reports since 1969 available on its website, and their balance-sheet and income-statement detail fills in some gaps in the system-wide data available from the FDIC and the Fed. We will dig into the system-wide data in next week’s second installment of our examination of banking system vulnerability. This week, we focus on five decades of Wells Fargo data for insight into how banks have fared during the last seven recessions, and how they’re positioned heading into the current one. Banking, Then And Now A time-traveling visitor who worked in banking between the New Deal and the beginning of bank deregulation in the late seventies would find that banks fulfill the same two primary functions as they did in his/her day. They still promote financial intermediation by turning savers’ deposits into fuel for investment and accelerated consumption via loans to businesses and households, and they still administer the payments system. S/he might be unfamiliar with many of the ways they carry out those duties, however, and especially surprised at the way that lending and maturity transformation have been eclipsed. The biggest banks have become far less reliant on lending over the last 50 years, and they no longer engage in maturity transformation, ... At the largest banks, lending is no longer the be-all and the end-all, as revenue from fees has very nearly caught up to net interest income (Chart 1). After adjusting net interest income for loan-loss provisions, lending accounted for just 44% and 48% of Wells Fargo’s revenues in the 2000s in the 2010s, respectively. On that basis, fee revenue exceeded net interest income every year from 2007-2013, inclusive. The rise of fee income has made bank earnings more stable and bank capital levels less dependent on borrower fitness. Chart 1Lending Is No Longer The Only Game In Town Banks also no longer engage in maturity transformation, or borrowing short to lend long, which placed them at the mercy of the yield curve. When it inverted, profitability was squeezed as new deposit-taking-and-lending activity became less lucrative. When the curve shifted out, even if it remained upward-sloping, there was a risk that interest expense on new short-term borrowings would exceed interest income on legacy portfolio assets. The latter is what killed the savings and loans, which were chartered expressly to channel household savings into 30-year fixed-rate home mortgages. ... so investors shouldn't obsess over the yield curve's every wiggle. There is no doubt that bank stocks have closely followed moves in the 10-year Treasury yield for the last several years, and the correlation makes some sense. With deposit rates stuck at zero, the spread between the rate banks pay for funds and the rate at which they lend them out (net interest margin), should move with long yields. Over the last two decades, however, Wells Fargo’s profitability (Chart 2, top panel) has largely detached from net interest margins (Chart 2, bottom panel). It and other banks would welcome higher long yields, but equity investors’ fixation on them is misplaced in a banking industry which has rigorously matched the duration of its assets and liabilities for decades. Chart 2NIM's Influence Has Faded Bank Balance Sheets Have Become Considerably More Conservative In the wake of the 2008-9 crisis, Wells Fargo and other banks have been managed much more cautiously. The share of Wells Fargo’s assets held in cash, Treasury and agency securities is at its highest level in the last 50 years (Chart 3). Its loan-to-deposit ratio is around 50-year lows, indicating that sticky core deposits1 are amply capable of funding its loan book (Chart 4). Wells’ overall leverage,2 or the value of assets supported by each dollar of common equity, is also way down (Chart 5). All banks have de-levered from their peaks, as mandated by regulators after the 2008-9 crisis, making the banking system safer, if less profitable. Mitigating some of the drag on profits brought about by lessened leverage, banks have become considerably more efficient since the early ‘70s. The ATM has reduced the need for physical branches and staff, check processing has been streamlined, and online banking is continuing to help push costs even lower. Chart 3Playing It Safe Chart 4Not Anywhere Close To Extended Chart 5Safety First Credit Costs: The Elephant In The Room The main concern for bank stability, profitability and capital adequacy is the effect of the economic sudden stop on credit performance. Credit performance is acutely sensitive to the business cycle, and banks have headed into this recession, as always, with very low loan-loss reserve balances (Chart 6, top panel). Loan-loss provisions, which reduce net income and chip away at capital positions, are bound to rise, suddenly and significantly (Chart 6, middle panel). (Please see the Box, below, for a brief description of the mechanics of accounting for credit impairments.) Chart 6Banks Have A Lot Of Catching Up To Do Box: Accounting For Lending Losses Every business that makes sales on credit maintains an allowance for doubtful accounts to reflect the fact that not every bill will be paid in full. That allowance reduces the carrying value of its accounts receivable to something below their aggregate face value. Using a loan-loss reserve account, banks apply the same principle to loan repayments. The loan-loss reserve is increased by provisions for loan losses, projections of future loan losses that are immediately recognized as an expense. At the time that a bank provisions for future losses, it does not map the as-yet unrealized losses to individual loans. The value of the loans that are not going to be fully repaid are marked down once they reveal themselves, and the sum of all of the individual write-downs is aggregated as a net charge-off. Identifying individual loan impairments reduces the pool of unspecified loan-loss reserves represented by the reserve account. Net charge-offs do not have any direct impact on bank earnings or bank capital, but by consuming existing reserves, they herald a rebuild of the reserve buffer. Table 1 shows the accounting entries involved in recognizing credit losses, demonstrating the underlying rules. Provisions increase reserves and charge-offs reduce them, triggering a need for more provisions, and ensuring a continuing drain on income and equity capital. Table 1Loan-Loss Accounting The current recession, emerging from the widespread shutdown of economic activity to counter COVID-19, will mark the sharpest downturn since the Great Depression. The sudden stop in activity, and borrowers’ revenue streams, should induce a high level of defaults. Perhaps Wells Fargo’s loan-loss reserves as a share of outstanding loans will ultimately exceed their 1993 peak of nearly 6.5%, following the 1990-91 recession, which wreaked particular havoc on real estate, and in California, where the bank conducted substantially all of its business. Banks would be in a tricky spot if the economy were left to face the coronavirus crisis by itself, but policymakers are doing their utmost to support it. Chart 7There's Nothing Unusual About Credit Line Exposures Wells Fargo barely broke even in 1991, and its book value declined by 6%. Investors seem to fear that it, and other banks, are at risk of net losses and book value declines in 2020. With nearly $1 trillion of outstanding loans, and an annual earnings run rate of around $20 billion, Wells Fargo would appear to be at risk of a nasty capital hit if the economic effects were left alone to play themselves out. The CARES Act coronavirus relief measure, however, clearly signals that the federal government is not going to leave the economy on its own to face the recession’s ravages. As a part of the act, banks were granted the option of delaying the implementation of CECL, the new credit loss recognition standard, which would have had the effect of speeding up the recognition of losses, until the virus emergency passes. The act also provided relief from a loan modification rule, thereby encouraging banks to work out new, easier terms to prevent defaults, and allowed community banks to operate with a reduced minimum equity capital cushion. The $850 billion dedicated to supporting small business borrowers ($350 billon) and other borrowers, including airlines and companies deemed critical to national security ($500 billion) will also benefit their creditors. It is clear to us that forbearance, which will help debtors and creditors weather the social-distancing storm, has been established as a guiding principle for managing through the crisis. Policymakers are out to help banks, not to clip their wings. Investors should also recognize that a lot of lending to small businesses and industrial borrowers has migrated away from banks. They do not stand as squarely in the path of the default storm as they would have in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s. Direct-lending funds sprung up in the wake of the 2008-9 crisis like mushrooms after the rain, and publicly-traded business development companies (BDCs) have steadily grown their SMID lending share. The biggest industrial borrowers are much more likely to turn to the bond market than they are to call on a syndicate of banks. Finally, the existence of unused loan commitments has occasioned concern among commentators and investors over the last several weeks. If corporate borrowers were to tap their credit lines en masse, would banks find themselves significantly more leveraged? Not at Wells Fargo, where total unfunded lending commitments are about at the middle of their range over the past 25 years (Chart 7, top panel), and its commitments to corporate borrowers are at the low end of their range (Chart 7, second panel). Credit card borrowers may be more inclined to max out their capacity (Chart 7, bottom panel), but that may not be a bad thing for bank profits. Interest on unpaid card balances produces juicy returns, and the 2005 bankruptcy overhaul makes it more difficult to discharge credit card debt. Bullish Or Bearish? Based on what we know now, we do not expect that the SIFI banks will pose a systemic threat to the financial system. Entire industries are at risk, and a multitude of small businesses are reeling, but banks have less exposure than they have in the past, and the Fed and Congress are on a war footing to try to protect the most vulnerable parts of the economy. The looming hit to the banks may be less severe than markets expect. Banks are especially exposed to the business cycle, and the market rule is to avoid them ahead of recessions. From a fundamental perspective, though, the last seven recessions have not been so bad for Wells Fargo. Its per-share book value managed to rise in all of them except the ’90-’91 recession3 (Chart 8). The stock slid in recessions because its book value multiple was slashed (Chart 9). Chart 8Book Value Doesn't Suffer Too Much In Recessions, ... Chart 9... But Multiples Are Regularly Crushed Wells Fargo’s multiple has been slashed again; as of Friday’s close, using its December 31st book value, it had fallen by 44%, from 1.33 to 0.75, and it had been more than halved as of last Monday. It trades at just 90% of its year-end tangible book value. On our first day on an equity trading desk, an old-timer told us that you “buy ‘em at one [times book], and sell ‘em at two.” He was talking about the investment banks, but Wells Fargo’s history suggests the maxim applies to commercial banks, too. In our view, SIFI banks offer an appealing margin of safety to investors who buy them at or below their tangible book value. The degree to which individual banks’ book values fall in this quarter and beyond depends on the size of their loan-loss provisions, but the selloff appears extreme. We noted the appeal of writing out-of-the-money puts on the SIFI banks last week, when the VIX was in the high 70s. Selling those options has lost some appeal after the S&P 500’s 10% surge last week, but writing them could again be alluring if the SIFIs revisit their lows in the coming days and weeks.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Loans that exceed deposits, or very nearly match them, are a sign of potential instability because banks often rely on “hot-money” flows to fund them by offering above-market interest rates on instruments like CDs. A bank must continue to pay above-market rates to retain these flows, which are prone to leave the bank for higher interest rates elsewhere. Loan-to-deposit ratios well below 100% can be funded entirely with core deposits, like checking and savings accounts, or market-rate CDs placed with core banking customers who are unlikely to move their business. 2 A bank’s leverage is calculated by dividing its total assets by its common shareholders’ equity. 3 Book value would have shrunk in 2008 if not for the purchase of Wachovia Bank at a significant discount.