Monetary

    Highlights Risk assets continue to ignore the dire state of the economy. “Don’t fight the Fed” will dictate investment policy for the coming months. Populism and supply-chain diversification will shape the world after COVID-19. Global stimulus will result in higher long-term inflation when the labor market returns to full employment. Asset prices are not ready for higher inflation rates. Precious metals, especially silver, will offer inflation protection. Stocks should structurally outperform bonds, even if they generate lower returns than in the past. Tech will continue to rise for now, but this sector will suffer when inflation turns higher. Feature Despite the continued collapse in economic activity, the S&P 500 remains resilient, bolstered by the largesse of the Federal Reserve and US government, and generous stimulus packages in other major economies. Stocks will likely climb even higher with this backdrop, but a violent second wave of COVID-19 infections may derail the scenario in the near term. The biggest risk, which is long-term in nature, is rising inflation. Public debt ratios will skyrocket in the G-10 and many emerging markets. Private debt loads, which are elevated in most countries, will also increase. Add rising populism and ageing populations into this mix and the incentive to push prices higher and reduce real debt loads becomes too enticing. Long-term investors must be wary. For the time being, overweight equities relative to bonds, but the specter of rising inflation suggests that growth stocks (e.g. tech) will not offer attractive long-term returns. Investors with an eye on multi-year returns should use the ongoing surge in growth stocks to strategically switch their portfolios toward small-cap equities, traditional cyclicals and precious metals. Economic Freefall Continues Most economic indicators paint a dismal picture for the US. Industrial activity is suffering tremendously. In April, industrial production collapsed by 15%, a pace matching the depth of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). The ISM New Orders-to-Inventories ratio remains extremely weak with no glimmer of a rebound in IP in May. The numbers for trucking activity and railway freight are equally poor. Chart I-1A Worried Consumer Saves The US labor market has not been this ill since the 1930s. 20.5 million jobs vanished in April and the unemployment rate soared to 14.7%, despite a 2.5 percentage point decline in the participation rate. The number of employees involuntarily working in part-time positions has surged by 5.9 million, which has hiked up the broader U-6 unemployment rate to 22.8%. Wage growth has rebounded smartly to 7.7%, but this is an illusion. Average hourly earnings rose only because low-wage workers in the leisure and hospitality fields bore the brunt of the pain, accounting for 37% of layoffs. The worst news is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) classifies any worker explicitly fired due to COVID-19 as temporarily laid off, but without a vaccine it is highly unlikely that employment in the leisure, hospitality or airline sectors will normalize anytime soon. Unsurprisingly, lockdowns have limited the ability of households to spend. Americans have boosted their savings rate to 13.1%, the highest level in 39 years, as they worry about catching a potentially deadly illness, losing their jobs, watching their incomes fall, or all of the above (Chart I-1). This double hit to both employment and consumer confidence sparked a 22% collapse in retail sales on an annual basis in April, the worst reading on record. Putting it all together, real GDP contracted at a 4.8% quarterly annualized rate in Q1 2020 and the Congressional Budget Office expects second-quarter annual growth to plummet to -37.7%. The New York Fed’s Weekly Economic Index suggests a more muted contraction of 11.1% (Chart I-2), which would still represent a post-war record. Investors must look beyond the gloom. The economic weakness is not limited to the US. In Europe and in emerging markets, retail sales and auto sales are disappearing at an unparalleled pace. Industrial production readings in those economies have been catastrophic and manufacturing PMIs are still in deeply contractionary territory. As a result, our Global Economic A/D line and our Global Synchronicity indicator continues to flash intense weakness (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The Worst Is Still To Come Chart I-3Dismal Growth, Everywhere   Chart I-4China Leads The Way Investors must look beyond the gloom. China’s experience with COVID-19 is instructive despite questions regarding the number of cases reported. China was the first country to witness the painful impact of COVID-19 and the quarantines needed to fight the disease. It was also the first country to control the virus’s spread and, most importantly, to escape the lockdown, along with being the first to enact economic stimulatory measures. The results are clear: industrial production, domestic new orders, and to a lesser extent, retail sales, are all experiencing V-shaped recoveries (Chart I-4). Even Chinese yields are rising, despite interest rate cuts by the People’s Bank of China. Accommodative Policy Matters Most The global policy “put option” is still in full force, which is boosting asset prices. A 41% rally in the median US stock reflects both a massive amount of funds inundating the financial system and a recovery that will take hold in the coming 12 months in response to this stimulus and the end of lockdowns. Global monetary policies have been even more aggressive than after the GFC. Interest rates have fallen as quickly and as broadly as they did around the Lehman bankruptcy. Moreover, unorthodox policy measures have become the norm (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Easy Policy, Everywhere In China, credit generation is quickly accelerating and has reached 28% of GDP, the highest in 2 years. Moreover, policymakers are emphasizing the need to create 9 million jobs in cities and keep the unemployment rate at 6%. Consequently, the recent rebound in construction activity will continue because it is a perfect medium to absorb excess workers. The ever-expanding quotas for local government special bonds to CNY3.75 trillion will also ensure that infrastructure spending energizes any recovery. Therefore, we expect Chinese imports of raw materials and machinery to accelerate into the second half of the year. The country’s orders of machine tools from Japan have already bottomed, which bodes well for overall Japanese orders (Chart I-6). Europe has also moved in the right direction. Government support continues to expand and combined public deficits will reach EUR 0.9 trillion, or 8.5% of GDP. Governmental guarantees have reached at least EUR1.4 trillion. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank’s balance sheet is swelling more quickly than during either the GFC or the euro area crisis (Chart I-7). Unsurprisingly, European shadow rates have collapsed to -7.6% and European financial conditions are the easiest they have been in 8 years. Chart I-6Will China's Rebound Matter? Chart I-7The ECB Is Aggressive   More importantly, COVID-19 has broken the taboo of common bond issuance in Europe. Last week, Chancellor Merkel, President Macron and EC President von der Leyen hatched a plan to issue common bonds that will finance a EUR 750 billion recovery fund as part of the European Commission Multiannual Financial Framework. The EC will then allocate EUR 500 billion of grants (not loans) to EU nations as long as they adhere to European principles. The unified front by the three most senior European politicians reflects elevated support for the EU among all European nations and an understanding that economic ruin in the smaller nations could capsize the core nations (Chart I-8). Hence, fiscal risk-sharing will increasingly become the norm in Europe. Unsurprisingly, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Greek bond spreads all narrowed significantly following the announcement. Chart I-8The Forces That Bind Chart I-9Negative Rates Are Here, Sort Of US policymakers have abandoned any semblance of orthodoxy. The Fed’s programs announced so far have lifted its balance sheet by $2.9 trillion and could generate an expansion to $11 trillion by year-end. Moreover, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has highlighted that there is “no limit” to what the Fed can do with its unconventional policy apparatus. The nature of the US funding market makes negative rates very dangerous and, therefore, highly doubtful in that country. Nonetheless, the Fed is willing to buy more paper from the public and private sectors to push the shadow rate and real interest rates further into negative territory (Chart I-9). Moreover, the Federal government has already bumped up the deficit by $3 trillion and the House has passed another $3 trillion in spending. Senate Republicans will pass some of this program to protect themselves in November. According to BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy service, a total escalation in the federal deficit of $5 trillion (or 23% of 2020 GDP) is extremely likely this year. Chart I-10The Fed Is Monetizing The Deficit Combined fiscal and monetary policy in the US will have a more invigorating impact on the recovery than the measures passed in 2008-09. They represent a larger share of output than during the GFC (10.5% versus 6% of GDP for the government spending and 15.2% versus 8.3% for the Fed’s balance sheet expansion). Moreover, the Fed is buying a much greater percentage of the Treasury’s issuance than during the GFC (Chart I-10). Therefore, the Fed is much closer to monetizing government debt than it was 11 years ago. The combined monetary and fiscal easing should result in a larger fiscal multiplier because the private sector is not financing as much of the government’s largesse. Thus, the increase in the private sector’s savings rate should be short-lived and the current account deficit will widen to reflect the greater fiscal outlays. Low real rates and a larger balance-of-payments disequilibrium should weaken the dollar which will ease US financial conditions further. A Trough In Inflation Maintaining incredibly easy monetary and fiscal conditions as the economy reopens will lead to higher inflation when the labor market reaches full employment. Core CPI has collapsed to 1.4% on an annual basis and to -2.4% on a three-month annualized basis, the lowest reading on record. The breakdown of the CPI report is equally dreadful (Chart I-11). However, CPI understates inflation because the basket measured by the BLS includes many areas of commerce currently not frequented by consumers. Items actually purchased by households, such as food, have experienced accelerating inflation in recent months. Fiscal risk-sharing will increasingly become the norm in Europe. Beyond this technicality, the most important factor behind the anticipated structural uptick in inflation is a large debt load burdening the global economy. Total nonfinancial debt in the US stands at 254% of GDP, 262% in the euro area, 380% in Japan, 301% in Canada, 233% in Australia, 293% in Sweden and 194% in emerging markets (Chart I-12). Historically, the easiest method for policymakers to decrease the burden of liabilities is inflation; the current political climate increases the odds of that outcome. Chart I-11Weak Core Chart I-12Record Debt, Everywhere   Households in the G-10 and emerging markets are angry. Growing inequalities, coupled with income immobility, have created dissatisfaction with the economic system (Chart I-13). Before the GFC, US households could gorge on debt to support their spending patterns, and inequalities went unnoticed. After the crisis revealed weakness in the household sector, banks tightened their credit standards and consumption slowed, constrained by a paltry expansion of the median household income. As a consequence, the American public increasingly supports left-wing economic policies (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Inequalities + Immobility = Anger Chart I-14The US Population's Shift To The Left COVID-19 is exacerbating the population’s discontent and highlighting economic disparities. The recession is hitting poor households in the US harder than the general population or highly skilled white-collar employees who can easily telecommute. Millennials, the largest demographic group in the US, are also irate. Their lifetime earnings were already lagging that of their parents because most millennials entered the job market in the aftermath of the GFC.1 Their income and balance sheet prospects were beginning to improve just as the pandemic shock struck. Finally, in response to the lockdowns and school closures caused by COVID-19, young families with children have to juggle permanent childcare and daily work demands from employers, resulting in a lack of separation between home and office.2  Economic populism will generate a negative supply shock, which will push up prices (Diagram I-1). BCA has espoused the theme of de-globalization since 20143 and COVID-19 will accelerate this trend. Firms do not want fragile supply chains that fall victim to random shocks; instead, they are looking to diversify their sources (Chart I-15). Additionally, workers and households want protection from foreign competition and perceived unfair trade practices. This sentiment is evident in a lack of trust toward China (Chart I-16). China-bashing will become a mainstay of American politics and rising tariffs will continue to increase the cost of doing business (Chart I-17). Last year’s Sino-US trade war was a precursor of events to come. Diagram I-1The Inflationary Impact Of A Stifled Supply Side Chart I-15COVID-19 Accelerates The Desire To Repatriate Production Chart I-16China As A Political Piñata Chart I-17The Cost Of Doing International Business Will Rise Chart I-18A Problem For Productivity The rate of capital stock accumulation does not bode well for the supply side of the economy. Productivity trails the path of capex, with a long time lag. The 10-year moving average of non-residential investment in the US bottomed three years ago. Its subsequent uptick should enhance average productivity. However, the growth of the real net capital stock per employee remains weak and will not strengthen because companies are curtailing spending in the recession. Moreover, the efficiency of the capital stock is well below its long-term average and probably will not mend if supply chains are made less efficient. These factors are negative for productivity and thus, the capacity to expand the supply side of the economy (Chart I-18). Finally, a significant share of capital stock is stranded and uneconomical. The airline industry is a good example. Going forward, regulations will keep the middle row seats empty. Fewer filled seats imply that the capital stock has lost significant value, which creates a negative supply shock for the industry. To break even, airlines will have to raise the price of fares. IATA estimates that fares will increase by 43%, 49% and 54% on North American, European and Asian routes, respectively (Table I-1). The same analysis can be applied to restaurants, hotels, cinemas, etc. – industries that will have to curtail their supplies and change their practices in response to COVID-19. Table I-1The Inflationary Impact Of Supply Cuts Chat I-19Pandemics Boost Wages While rising populism will hurt the supply side of the economy, it will also hike demand. Redistribution is an outcome of populism. Corporate tax hikes hurt rich households that receive more than 50% of their income from profits. High marginal tax rates on high earners will also curtail their disposable income. Shifting a bigger share of national income to the middle class will depress the savings rate and boost demand. It is estimated that the middle class’s marginal propensity to spend is 90% compared with 60% for richer households. In fact, in the past 40 years, the shift in income distribution has curtailed demand by 3% of GDP. Pandemics also increase real wages. Òscar Jordà, Sanjay Singh, and Alan Taylor demonstrated that European real wages accelerated following pandemics (Chart I-19). Fewer willing workers contributed to the climb in real wages by decreasing the supply of labor. Higher real wages are positive for consumption. China-bashing will become a mainstay of American politics and rising tariffs will continue to increase the cost of doing business. Populism will also put upward pressure on public spending. Governments globally and in the US are bailing out the private sector to an even larger extent than they did after the GFC. Discontent with expanding inequalities and the perceived lack of accountability of the corporate sector4 will push the government to be more involved in economic management than it was after 2008. Moreover, the post-2008 environment showed that austerity was negative for private sector income growth and the economic welfare of the middle class (Chart I-20). Thus, government spending and deficits as a share of GDP will be structurally higher for the coming decade. Higher deficits mechanically boost aggregate demand which is inflationary if the advance of aggregate supply is sluggish. Chat I-20Austerity Hurts Central banks will likely enable these inflationary dynamics. The Fed knows that it has missed its objective by a cumulative 4% since former Chairman Ben Bernanke set an official inflation target of 2% in 2012. Thus, it has lost credibility in its ability to generate 2% inflation, which is why the 10-year breakeven rate stands at 1.1% and not within the 2.3%-2.5% range that is consistent with its mandate. Moreover, the Fed is worried that the immediate deflationary impact of COVID-19 will further depress inflation expectations and reinforce low realized inflation. This logic partly explains why the Fed currently recommends more stimulus and the Federal Open Market Committee will be reluctant to remove accommodation anytime soon. Inflation will likely move toward 4-5% after the US economy regains full employment. Central banks may fall victim to growing populism. Both the Democrats and Republicans want control over the US Fed. If Congress changes the Fed’s mandate, there would be great consequences for inflation. Prior to the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, the Fed’s mandate was to foster full employment conditions without any explicit mention of inflation. Therefore, the Fed kept the unemployment rate well below NAIRU for most of the post-war period. This tight labor market was a key ingredient behind the inflationary outbreak of the 1970s. After the reform act explicitly imposed a price stability directive on top of the Fed’s employment mandate, the unemployment rate spent a much larger share of time above NAIRU, which contributed to the structural decline in inflation after 1982 (Chart I-21). Chat I-21The Fed's Mandate Matters Finally, demographics will also feed inflationary pressures. The global support ratio peaked in 2014 as the number of workers per dependent decreased due to ageing of the population in the West and China (Chart I-22). A declining support ratio depresses the growth of the supply side of the economy because the dependents continue to consume. In today’s world, dependents are retirees, who have higher healthcare spending needs. This healthcare spending will accrue additional government spending. Moreover, it will continue to push up healthcare inflation, which will contribute to higher overall inflation (Chart I-23). Chat I-22Demographics: From Deflation To Inflation Chat I-23Aging Will Feed Healthcare Inflation   Bottom Line: COVID-19 has highlighted inequalities in the population and will accelerate a move toward populism that started four years ago. Consequently, the supply side of the economy will grow more slowly than it did in prior decades, while greater government interventions and redistributionist policies will boost aggregate demand. Additionally, monetary policy will probably stay easy for too long and demographic factors will compound the supply/demand mismatch. Inflation will likely move toward 4-5% after the US economy regains full employment, but will not surge to 1970s levels. Investment Implications Chat I-24Breakevens Will Listen To Commodities Extremely accommodative economic policy and a shift to higher inflation will dominate asset markets for the next five years or more. Breakevens in the G-10 are pricing in permanently subdued inflation for the coming decade, which creates a large re-pricing opportunity if inflation troughs when the labor market reaches full employment. Investors cannot wait for inflation to turn the corner to bet on higher breakevens. After the GFC, core CPI bottomed in October 2010, but US breakevens hit their floor at 0.15% in December 2008. Instead, a rebound in commodity prices and a turnaround in the global economic outlook may signal when investors should buy breakevens (Chart I-24). Chat I-25Deleterious US Balance Of Payments Dynamics A repricing of inflation expectations will depress real rates. Central banks want to see inflation expectations normalize towards 2.3%-2.5% before signaling an end to accommodation. Moreover, political pressures and high debt loads will likely loosen their reaction functions to higher breakeven. As a result, real interest rates will decline because nominal ones will not rise by as much as inflation expectations. This is exactly what central banks want to achieve because it will foster a stronger recovery. Our US fixed-income strategists favor TIPS over nominal Treasurys. The dollar will probably depreciate in the post-COVID-19 environment. As we wrote last month, the US is the most aggressive reflator among major economies. The twin deficit will expand while US real rates will remain depressed. This is very negative for the USD, especially in an environment where the US money supply is outpacing global money supply (Chart I-25).5 Additionally, Chinese reflation will stimulate global industrial production, which normally hurts the dollar. EM currencies are cheap enough that long-term investors should begin to bet on them (Chart I-26), especially if global inflation structurally shifts higher. Precious metals win from the combination of higher inflation, lower real rates and a weaker dollar. However, silver is more attractive than gold. Unlike the yellow metal, it trades at a discount to the long-term inflation trend (Chart I-27). Moreover, silver has more industrial uses, especially in the solar panel and computing areas. Thus, the post-COVID-19 recovery and the need to double up supply chains will boost industrial demand for silver and lift its price relative to gold. Our FX strategists recommend selling the gold-to-silver ratio.6 Chat I-26Cheap EM FX Chat I-27Silver Is The Superior Inflation Hedge   Chat I-28Still Time To Favor Stocks Over Bonds Investors should favor stocks over bonds. This statement is more an indictment of the poor value of bonds and their lack of defense against rising inflation than a structural endorsement of stocks. The equity risk premium is elevated. To make this call, we need to account for the lack of stationarity of this variable and adjust for the expected growth rate of earnings. Nonetheless, once those factors are accounted for, our ERP indicator continues to flash a buy signal in favor of equities at the expense of bonds (Chart I-28). Moreover, bonds tend to underperform stocks when inflation trends up for a long time (Table I-2).   Table I-2Rising Inflation Flatters Stocks Over Bonds Chart I-29Bonds Are Prohibitively Expensive In absolute terms, G-7 government bonds are also vulnerable, both tactically and structurally. They are overbought and currently trade at their greatest premium to fair value since Q4 2009 and Q1 1986, two periods followed by sharp rebounds in yields (Chart I-29). Moreover, the previous experience with QE programs shows that even if real rates diminish, the reflationary impact of aggressive monetary policy on breakeven rates is enough to increase nominal interest rates (Chart I-30). Additionally, as our European Investment Strategy team indicates, bond yields are close to their practical lower bound, which creates a negative skew to their return profile.7 This asymmetric return distribution destroys their ability to hedge equity risk going forward, making this asset class less appealing to investors. This problem is particularly salient in Europe and Japan. A lower dollar, which is highly reflationary for global growth, will likely catalyze the rise in yields.   Chart I-30QE Will Lift Breakevens And Yields As long as real rates remain under downward pressure, the window to own stocks remains open, even if stocks continue to churn. Equities are expensive, but when yields are taken into consideration, their adjusted P/E is in line with the historical average (Chart I-31). Moreover, periods of weak growth associated with lower real interest rates can foster a large expansion in multiples (Chart I-32). Chart I-31Low Bond Yields Allow High Stock Multiples Chart I-32Multiples Will Rise Further As The Fed Floods The World With Low Rates Whether to have faith in stocks in absolute terms on a long-term basis is complicated by our view on inflation and populism. Strong inflation will increase nominal rates. Moreover, low productivity coupled with higher real wages, less-efficient supply chains and higher taxes will accentuate the margin compression that higher inflation typically creates. Thus, equities are expected to generate poor real returns over the long term, even if they beat bonds. Chart I-33Tech EPS Leadership Tech stocks are another structural problem for equities. Including Amazon, Google and Facebook, tech stocks account for 41% of the S&P 500’s market cap. As our US Equity Strategy service explains, wherever tech goes, so does the US market.8 Tech stocks are the current market darling. Today, the tech sector is the closest thing to a safe-haven in the mind of market participants, because a post-COVID-19 environment will favor tech spending (telecommuting, e-commerce, cloud computing, etc.). The problem for long-term investors is that this view is the most consensus view. Already, investors expect the tech sector to generate the highest EPS outperformance relative to the rest of the S&P 500 in more than 15 years (Chart I-33). Moreover, in a low-yield environment, investors are particularly willing to bid up the multiples of growth stocks such as tech equities because low interest rates result in muted discount factors for long-term cash flows. When should investors begin betting against the tech sector? Backed by a powerful narrative, tech stocks are evolving into a mania. Yet, contrarian investors understand, being too early to sell a mania can be deadly. Bond yields should not be relied on to signal an end to the bubble. During most of the 1990s, tech would outperform the market when Treasury yields declined. However, when the tech outperformance became manic, yields became irrelevant. From the fall of 1998 to the beginning of 2000, 10-year yields rose from 4.2% to 6.8%, yet the tech sector outperformed the S&P 500 by 127%. More recently, yields rose from 1.33% in the summer of 2016 to 3.25% in November 2018, but tech outperformed the broader market by 39%.   Investors should favor stocks over bonds. Instead, higher inflation will be the key factor to end the tech sector’s infallibility. Since the 1990s, higher core inflation has led periods of tech underperformance by roughly six months. This relationship also held at the apex of the tech bubble in the second half of the 1990s (Chart I-34). Relative tech forward EPS suffers when core inflation rises, as the rest of the S&P 500 is more geared to higher nominal GDP growth. In essence, if nominal growth is less scarce, then the need to bid up growth stocks diminishes. Moreover, the dollar will likely be the first early signal because it leads nominal GDP. As a result, a weak dollar leads to a contraction in tech relative multiples by approximately 9 months (Chart I-35). Chart I-34Tech Hates Inflation... Chart I-35...And A Soft Dollar   We recommend long-term investors shift their portfolios toward industrial equities when inflation turns the corner. As a corollary, the low exposure of European and Japanese stocks to the tech sector suggests these cheap bourses will finally reverse their more-than-a-decade-long underperformance at the same time. This strategy means that even if the S&P 500 generates negative real returns during the coming decade, investors could still eke out positive returns from their stock holdings. Higher inflation will be the key factor to end the tech sector’s infallibility. Chart I-36The Time For Commodities Is Coming Back Finally, commodities plays are also set to shine in the coming decade. Commodities are very cheap and oversold relative to stocks (Chart I-36). Commodities outperform equities in an environment where inflation rises, real rates decline and the dollar depreciates. Consequently, materials and energy stocks may be winners. As a corollary, Latin American and Australian equities should also reverse their decade-long underperformance when inflation and the dollar turn the corner. This month's Section II Special Report is an in depth study of the Spanish Flu pandemic, written by our colleague Amr Hanafy and also published in BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation service. Amr thoroughly analyses the evolution of the 100-year old pandemic and which measures mattered most to contain the virus and allow a return to economic normality. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 28, 2020 Next Report: June 25, 2020 II. Lessons From The Spanish Flu What Can 1918/1919 Teach Us About COVID-19?   “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana – 1905 Chart II-1Coronavirus: As Contagious But Not As Deadly As Spanish Flu Today’s economy is very different to that of 100 years ago. Many countries then were in the middle of World War I (which ended in November 1918). The characteristics of the Spanish Flu which struck the world in 1918 and 1919 were also different to this year’s pandemic. COVID-19 is almost as contagious as the Spanish Flu, but it is much less deadly (Chart II-1). Healthcare systems and treatments today are far more advanced than those of a century ago: many people who caught Spanish flu died of complications caused by bacterial pneumonia, given the absence of antibiotics. Influenza viruses tend to mutate rapidly: the influenza virus in 1918 first mutated to become far more virulent in its second wave, and then to become much milder. Coronaviruses have a “proofreading” capacity and mutate less easily.9  Nevertheless, an analysis of the pandemic of 100 years ago provides a number of insights into the current crisis, particularly now that policymakers are easing social-distancing rules to help the economy, even at the risk of more cases and deaths. Among the lessons of 1918-1919: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) do lower mortality rates. The speed at which NPIs are implemented and the period of implementation are as important as the number of measures taken. Removing or relaxing measures too early can lead to a renewed rise in mortality rates. It is hard to compare current fiscal and monetary policies to those taken during the 1918 pandemic, since policy in both areas was already easy before the pandemic as a result of the world war. However, a severe pandemic would certainly call for a wartime-like fiscal and monetary response. The economy was negatively impacted by the pandemic in 1918-19 but, despite the shock to industrial activity and employment, the economy subsequently rebounded quickly, in a V-shaped recovery. Introduction Predicting how the economy will react to the COVID-19 pandemic is hard. Governments and policymakers face multiple uncertainties: How effective are different containment measures? Will cases and deaths rebound quickly if lockdown measures are eased? When will the coronavirus disappear? When will a vaccine be ready? With an event unprecedented in the experience of anyone alive today, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from history. For this Special Report, we attempt to draw some parallels between the current situation and the 1918-19 Spanish flu. We focus on the different containment efforts implemented, the role that fiscal and monetary policies played, the impact on markets and the economy, and whether history can throw any light on how the COVID-19 crisis might pan out. The 1918 Spanish Flu Chart II-2The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most lethal in modern history. Soldiers returning from World War I helped spread the pandemic across the globe. The first recorded case is believed to have been in an army camp in Kansas. While there is no official count, researchers estimate that about 500 million people contracted the virus globally, with a mortality rate of between 5% and 10%. The pandemic occurred over three waves in 1918 and 1919 – the first in the spring of 1918, the second (and most deadly) in the fall of 1918, and the third in spring 1919 (Chart II-2). In the US alone, official data estimate that around 500,000 deaths (or over 25% of all deaths) in 1918 and 1919 were caused by pneumonia and influenza.10 The pandemic moved swiftly to Europe and reached Asia by mid-1918, but became more lethal only towards the end of the year (Map II-1).11 Map II-1The Spread Of Influenza Through Europe Initially, scientists were puzzled by the origin of the influenza and its biology. It was not until a decade later, in the early 1930s, that Richard Shope isolated the particular influenza virus from infected pigs, confirming that a virus caused the Spanish Flu, not a bacterium as most had thought. Many of those who caught this strain of influenza died as a result of their lungs filling with fluid in a severe form of pneumonia. In reporting death rates, then, it is considered best practice to include deaths from both influenza and pneumonia. The first wave had almost all the hallmarks of a seasonal flu, albeit of a highly contagious strain. Symptoms were similar and mortality rates were only slightly higher than a normal influenza. The first wave went largely unnoticed given that deaths from pneumonia were common then. US public health reports show that the disease received little attention until it reappeared in a more severe form in Boston in September 1918.12 Most countries did not begin investigating and reporting cases until the second wave was underway (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Most Countries Began Reporting Only When The Second Wave Hit This second wave – which was more lethal because the virus had mutated – had a unique characteristic. Unlike the typical influenza mortality curve – which is usually “U” shaped, affecting mainly the very young and elderly – the 1918 influenza strain had a “W”-shaped mortality curve – impacting young adults as well as old people (Chart II-4). This pattern was evident in all three waves, but most pronounced during the second wave. The reason for this was that the infection caused by the influenza became hyperactive, producing a “cytokine storm” – when mediators secreted from the immune system result in severe inflammation.13 Simply put, as the virus became virulent, the body’s immune system overworked to fight it. Younger people, with strong immune systems, suffered most from this phenomenon. Chart II-4A Unique Characteristic: Impacting Younger Adults By the summer of 1919, the pandemic was over, since those who had been infected had either died or recovered, therefore developing immunity. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess if “herd immunity” was achieved. However, some historical accounts and research – particularly for army groups in the US and the UK – suggest that those exposed to the disease in the first mild wave were not affected during the second more severe wave.14 The failure to define the causative pathogen at the time made development of a vaccine impossible. Nevertheless, some treatments and remedies showed modest success. These varied from using a serum – obtained from people who had recovered, who therefore had antibodies against the disease – to simple symptomatic drugs and various oils and herbs. The Effectiveness Of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) Chart II-5Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough What we today call “social distancing” showed positive effects during the 1918-19 pandemic. These included measures very similar to those applied today: school closures, isolation and quarantines, bans on some sorts of public gatherings, and more. However, there were few travel bans. The number of passengers carried during the months of the pandemic did noticeably decline though (Chart II-5). Table II-1, based on research by Hatchett, Mecher and Lipsitch, breaks down NPIs by type for 17 major US cities. Most cities implemented a wide range of interventions. But it was not only the type of NPIs implemented that made a difference, but also the speed and length of implementation. Further research by Markel, Lipman and Navarro based on 43 US cities shows that the median number of days between the first reported influenza case and the first NPI implementation was over two weeks. The median period during which various NPIs were implemented was about six weeks (Table II-2). Table II-1Measures Applied Then Are Very Similar To Those Applied Today Table II-2NPIs Were Implemented Only For Short Periods Markel, Lipman and Navarro's findings show that a rapid public-health response was an important factor in reducing the mortality rate by slowing the rate of infection, what we now refer to as “flattening the curve.” There were major differences in cities’ policies: both the speed at which they implement NPIs, and the length of the implementation period. Chart II-6 shows that: Cities that acted quickly to implement NPIs slowed the rate of infections and deaths (Chart II-6, panel 1) Cities that acted quickly had lower mortality rates from influenza and pneumonia (Chart II-6, panel 2) Cities that implemented NPIs for longer periods had fewer deaths (Chart II-6, panel 3) Chart II-7 quantifies the number of NPIs taken, the time it took to implement the measures, and the length of NPIs to gauge policy strictness. Cities with stricter enforcement had lower death rates than those with laxer measures. Chart II-6Fast Response And Longer Implementation Led To Fewer Deaths... Chart II-7...So Did Policy Strictness     For example, Kansas City, less than a week after its first reported case, had implemented quarantine and isolation measures. By the second week, schools, churches, and other entertainment facilities closed. Schools reopened a month later (in early November) but quickly shut again until early January 1919. While we do not have definitive dates on when each NPI was lifted, some sort of protective measures in Kansas City were in place for almost 170 days. By contrast, Philadelphia, one of the cities hardest hit by Spanish Flu, took more than a month to implement any measures. Its tardiness meant that it reached a peak mortality rate much more quickly: in 13 days compared to 31 days for Kansas City. Even after the first reported case, the Liberty Loans Parade was still held on September 28, 1918 – with the knowledge that hundreds of thousands of spectators might be vulnerable to infection.15,16 It was not until a few days later that institutions were closed and a ban on public gatherings was imposed. Many other cities also held a Liberty Loans Parade, including Pittsburgh and Washington DC, but Philadelphia’s was the deadliest. Studies also show that relaxing interventions too early could be as damaging as implementing them too late. St. Louis, for example, was quick to lift restrictions and suffered particularly badly in the second wave as a result. It later reinstated NPIs up until end of February 1919. Other cities that eased restrictions too early (San Francisco and Minneapolis, for example) also suffered from a second swift, albeit milder, increase in weekly excess death rates from pneumonia and influenza (Chart II-8). Chart II-8Relaxing Lockdown Measures Too Early Can Lead To A Second Rise In Deaths... Chart II-9...And So Can Highly Effective Measures Of course, NPIs cannot be implemented indefinitely. A recent research paper by Bootsma and Ferguson raises the point that suppressing a pandemic may not be the best strategy because it just leaves some people susceptible to infection later. They argue that highly effective social distancing measures, which allow a susceptible pool of people to reintegrate into society when the measures are lifted, are likely to lead to a resurgence in infections and fatalities in a second peak (Chart II-9).17 They suggest an optimal level of control measures to reduce R (the infection rate) to a value that makes a significant portion of the population immune once measures are lifted.  The Impact Of The Spanish Flu On The Economy And Markets How did the Spanish Flu pandemic affect the economy? Many pandemic researchers ignore the official recession identified by the NBER during the months of the pandemic (between August 1918 and March 1919).18 The reason is that most of the evidence indicates that the economic effects of the 1918-19 pandemic were short-term and relatively mild.19 Disentangling drivers of the economy is, indeed, tricky given that WW1 ended in November 1918. However, it is easy to underestimate the negative impact of the pandemic since the war had such a big impact on the economy, as well as investor and public sentiment. Various research papers support the fact that, while the pandemic did indeed have an adverse effect on the economy, NPIs did not just depress mortality rates, but also sped the post-pandemic economic recovery.20 Research by Correia, Sergio, and Luck showed that the areas most severely affected by the pandemic saw a sharp and persistent decline in real economic activity, whereas cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively, experienced a relative increase in economic activity post the pandemic.21 Their findings are based on the increase in manufacturing employment after the pandemic compared to before it (1919 versus 1914). However, note that the rise of manufacturing payrolls in 1919 was high everywhere given the return of soldiers post-WWI. The researchers also note that those cities hardest hit by the pandemic also saw a negative impact on manufacturing activity, the stock of durable goods, and bank assets. Chart II-10Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary Because Spanish flu disproportionately killed younger adults, many families lost their breadwinner. In economic terms, this implies both a negative supply shock and negative demand shock. If fewer employees are available to produce a certain good, supply will fall. The same reduction in employment also implies reduced income and therefore lower purchasing power. Both cases will result in a decrease in output. However, the change in prices depends on the decline of supply relative to demand. In 1918-19, the impact was disinflationary: demand declined by more than supply, and both spending and consumer prices fell during the pandemic (Chart II-10). US factory employment fell by over 8% between March 1918 and March 1919 – the period from the beginning of the first wave until the end of the second wave. It is important to note, however, that few businesses went bankrupt during the pandemic years (Chart II-11). Additionally, the November 1918 Federal Reserve Bulletin highlighted that many cities, including New York, Kansas City, and Richmond, experienced a shortage of labor due to the influenza.22 Factory employment in New York fell by over 10% during this period. The link between the labor shortages and the decline in industrial production is unclear. Industrial activity in the US peaked just before the second wave, contracting by over 20% during the second wave (Chart II-12). Various industries reported disruptions: automobile production fell by 67%, anthracite coal production and shipments fell by around 45%, and railroad freight revenues declined by over seven billion ton-miles (Chart II-12, panels 2, 3 & 4). However, some of this decline is attributed to falling defense production after the war. Chart II-11Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners Chart II-12Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly   Chart II-13The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic Chart II-14Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started The equity market moved in a broad range in 1915-1919 and fell sharply only ahead of the 1920 recession (Chart II-13). Seemingly, stock market participants were more focused on the war than the pandemic. The lack of reporting of the pandemic could have contributed to this: newspapers were encouraged to avoid carrying bad news for reasons of patriotism and did not widely cover the pandemic until late 1918.23 The Federal Reserve played an active role in funding the government’s spending on the war, and so monetary policy was very easy during the pandemic – but for other reasons. The Fed used its position as a lender to the banking system to facilitate war bond sales.16 Interest rates were cut in 1914 and 1915 even before the US entered the war. The US economy had been in recession between January 1913 and December 1914. Policy rates remained low throughout 1916 and 1917 and slightly rose in 1918 and 1919. It was not until 1920 that Federal Reserve Bank System tightened policy rapidly to choke off inflation, which accelerated to over 20% in mid-1920 – rising inflation being a common post-war phenomenon (Chart II-14). The Lessons Of 1918-19 For The Coronavirus Pandemic Non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue to be implemented until a vaccine, effective therapeutic drugs, or mass testing is available. Relaxing measures prematurely is as damaging as a tardy reaction to the pandemic. Reacting quickly and imposing multiple measures for longer periods not only reduces mortality rates, but also improves economic outcomes post-crisis. The economy suffers in the short-term: supply and demand shocks lead to lower output. The demand shock however is larger leading to lower prices and disinflationary pressures, at least during and immediately after the pandemic.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we maintained a positive disposition toward stocks, especially at the expense of government bonds. The global economy may be in the midst of its most severe contraction since the Great Depression, but betting against stocks is too dangerous when fiscal and monetary policy are both as easy as they are today. In essence, don’t fight the Fed. This view remains in place, even if the short-term risk/reward ratio for holding stocks is deteriorating. On a cyclical basis, the same factors that made us willing buyers of stocks remain broadly in place. Stocks are not as cheap as they were in late March, but monetary conditions have only eased further as real interest rates weakened. Additionally, our Speculation Indicator has eased, which indicates that contrary to many commentators’ perceptions, speculation is not rampant. Confirming this intuition, the equity risk premium remains elevated (even when one takes into account its lack of stationarity) and expected growth rates of earnings are still very low. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator is finally flashing a strong buy signal. Tactically, equities are still overbought. We have had four 5% or more corrections since March 23. More of them are in the cards. However, the most likely outcome for the S&P 500 this summer is a churning pattern, not a major downward move below 2700. The median stock is still 26% below its August 2018 low and only a fraction of equities on the NYSE trade above their 30-week moving average. These indicators do not scream that a major correction is on the horizon, especially when policy is as accommodative as it is today. We continue to recommend investors take advantage of the supportive backdrop for stocks by buying equities relative to bonds. In contrast to global bourses, government bonds are still massively overbought on a cyclical basis and trading at their largest premium to fair value since Q4 2008 and late 1985. Additionally, the vast sums of both monetary and fiscal stimulus injected in the economy should lift inflation expectations and thus, bond yields. The yield curve is therefore slated to steepen further. Since we last published, the dollar has not meaningfully depreciated, but the DXY is trying to breakdown while our composite technical indicator is making lower highs. It is too early to gauge whether the recent rebound in the IDR, the MXN, or the ZAR is anything more than an oversold bounce, but if it were to continue, it would indicate that the expensive greenback is starting to buckle under the weight of the quickly expanding twin deficit. The widening in the current account deficit that will result from extraordinarily loose fiscal policy means that the large increase in money supply by the Fed will leak out of the US economy. This process is highly bearish for the dollar. Ultimately, the timing of the dollar’s weakness will all boil down to global growth. As signs are building up that global growth is bottoming, odds are rising that the dollar will finally breakdown. Get ready for a meaningful downward move over the coming months. Finally, commodities seem to be gaining traction. The Continuous Commodity Index’s A/D line is quickly moving up and our Composite Technical Indicator is quickly rising from extremely oversold levels. Oil will hold the key for the broad complex. Oil supply has started to adjust lower and oil demand is set to improve starting June/July as the global economy re-opens, fueled with massive amounts of stimulus. As a result, inventories should start to meaningfully decline this summer, which will support the recent recovery in oil prices. If oil can rebound further, industrial commodities will follow. Finally, gold is a mixed bag in the near term. The dollar is set to weaken significantly and inflation breakevens to move higher, which will mitigate the negative impact of declining risk aversion. Silver is a superior play to gold as it will benefit from a recovery in global growth. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Reid Cramer et al., The Emerging Millennial Wealth Gap, Divergent Trajectories, Weak Balance Sheets, and Implications for Social Policy, New America, Oct 2019. 2 https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-normal-amid-coronavirus-working-from-home-while-schooling-the-kids-11584437400 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient," dated June 27, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "May 2020," dated April 30, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "A Few Trades Amidst A Pandemic," dated May 22, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "European Investors Left Defenceless," dated May 21, 2020, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report "Debunking Earnings," dated May 19, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see the Q&A with immunologist and Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty, published by BCA Research April 1st 2020: BCA Research Special Report, “Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers,” available at bcaresearch.com 10 Please see “Leading Cause of Death, 1990-1998,” CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 Please see Ansart S, Pelat C, Boelle PY, Carrat F, Flahault A, Valleron AJ, “Mortality burden of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in Europe,” NCBI. 12 Please see Public Health Report, vol. 34, No. 38, Sept. 19, 1919. 13 Please see Qiang Liu, Yuan-hong Zhou, Zhan-qiu Yang Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan; 13(1): 3–10. 14 Please see Shope, R. (1958) Public Health Rep. 73, 165–178. 15 The Liberty Loans Parade was intended to promote the sale of government bonds to pay for World War One. 16 Please see Hatchett RJ, Mecher CE, Lipsitch M (2007) "Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic,"PNAS 104: 7582–7587. 17 Please see Bootsma M, Ferguson N, “The Effect Of Public Health Measures On The 1918 Influenza Pandemic In U.S. Cities,” PNAS (2007). 18 Please see https://www.nber.org/cycles.html 19 Please see https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-development/res…12               Please see https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/03/fight-the-pandemic-save-the-economy-lessons-from-the-1918-flu.html. 20 Please see Correia, Sergio and Luck, Stephan and Verner, Emil, Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu (March 30, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3561560 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3561560. 21 Please see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935- and Federal Reserve Board, 1914-1935. "November 1918," Federal Reserve Bulletin (November 1918). 22 Please see https://newrepublic.com/article/157094/americas-newspapers-covered-pandemic. 23 Please see https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_role_during_wwi.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The Fed’s extremely easy monetary backdrop along with easy fiscal policy remain the dominant macro themes, and they will continue to underpin the equity market. We remain constructive on the equity market’s prospects on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon. While the path of least resistance remains higher for the S&P biotech index, we do not want to overstate our welcome and are putting it on downgrade alert and instituting a 5% rolling stop in order to protect profits. Relative supply/demand dynamics, social distancing, the pendulum swinging from renting to owing and enticing relative technicals and valuations, all signal that a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade is primed to generate alpha.   Recent Changes Initiate a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P real estate trade, today. Table 1 Feature The SPX had a bumper week last week, but failed to pierce through the 200-day moving average. A flare up in the US/China trade war, a barrage of positive coronavirus vaccine news and Jay Powell’s 60 minutes interview brought back some volatility in trading, however, the VIX remains in a steady downturn. Importantly, investors are nowhere near as complacent as during the 2018/19 or early 2020 SPX peaks, judging by VIX futures positioning (net speculative positions shown inverted, Chart 1). Chart 1Positioning Is Far... In other words, there is still room for equities to rise before sentiment reaches greedy levels. A number of other indicators we track confirm that recent SPX trading is associated more with panic than with euphoria. Namely, Chart 2 shows that our Complacency-Anxiety, Capitulation and Equity Sentiment Indicators, all corroborate that investor confidence is far from previous exuberant peaks, and signal that there is scope for additional equity gains on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon.  Delving deeper into investor psyche, our sense is that there are three distinct camps of investors at the current juncture, two of which are fiercely battling it out in the stock market. Chart 2…From Complacent First there are the pessimists that we call “second wavers” that are more often than not also “Fed non-believers” or “Fed fighters”. They argue that stocks are extremely expensive and if a second wave of the corona virus hits, then stocks are going to plunge anew given the lack of a valuation cushion, as all the money in the world (Fed QE5) cannot cure the virus (top panel, Chart 3). Second, there are the optimists that are hopeful that a vaccine/drug cocktail discovery is looming to effectively eradicate the coronavirus. These investors also believe in the smooth reopening of the economy. But, even if there were a second wave, their thinking goes that our societies/governments/health care systems are all going to be more prepared and effective to deal with a second viral outbreak in the fall. In addition, they are in the “do not fight the Fed” camp. Finally, there are the more moderate investors that lie somewhere in between these two camps. They sat tight and held on to their stock positions during the 36% peak-to-trough SPX drawdown and have likely been on the sidelines lately (bottom panel, Chart 3) awaiting a catalyst to either deploy fresh capital or raise some cash. We are in the more optimistic camp and while a vaccine may be months away, we will have to figure out a way as a society to more effectively protect the elderly that are most at risk from the virus and continue to live on, as we first posited in the March 23rd Weekly Report when we outlined 20 reasons to buy stocks and reprint here: "20. Social-distancing measures in the West will ultimately break the Epidemic Curve first derivative and arrest the panic. Even if COVID-19 comes back in force, the fact is that most of the patients who succumb to it are elderly. In Italy, the average age of death is 80 years old. As such, the final circuit-breaker ahead of a GFC would be desensitization by the population, as selective quarantines – targeting the elderly cohorts – get implemented in order to allow other people to return to work. Furthermore, two “silver bullet” solutions remain as tail risks to the bearish narrative. First, a biotech or pharmaceutical company may make a breakthrough in the fight against COVID-19. Not necessarily a vaccine, but a treatment. Finally, upcoming warm weather in the northern hemisphere may also help the fight against the virus."1 Chart 3Cash Hoarding Is Associated With Market Troughs Chart 4Loose Monetary Policy… Moreover, we definitely refrain from fighting the Fed as we outlined in our recent “Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril” Weekly Report2 and reiterate that view today (Chart 4). While some investors were surprised by Jay Powell’s 60 Minutes interview remarks on the way the Fed digitally creates money, Ben Bernanke in another 60 Minutes interview in March 20093 made a similar comment that we cited in our March 23 Weekly Report (please refer to reason number 6 to buy equities).4 Importantly, we felt that Jay Powell’s demeanor was more like “please test our resolve Mr. Market if you reckon the FOMC is out of ammunition”. As a reminder, the Fed is in a position of strength: devaluing a currency is easy, revaluing/defending a currency is difficult and at times impossible as FX (and gold) reserves eventually run dry. In sum, the Fed’s extremely easy monetary backdrop along with easy fiscal policy (Chart 5) remain the dominant macro themes, and they will continue to underpin the equity market. Eventually, a liquidity handoff to growth will take root, and the SPX will no longer require the immense fiscal and monetary supports. As a result we continue to believe that stocks will be higher in the coming 9-12 months. Chart 5…And Easy Fiscal Policy Are Underpinning Stocks Biotech Delivers We have been overweight the S&P biotech index and adding alpha to our portfolio in the double digits, however we do not want to overstate our welcome and are putting it on downgrade alert and instituting a 5% rolling stop in order to protect profits. While a few technology sectors and subsectors have come close to vaulting to fresh all-time highs, none other than the S&P biotech index has managed such an impressive feat. The stealthy advance in biotech stocks has been earnings driven and is not only confined to the narrow based Big-Pharma lookalike S&P biotech index (Chart 6). The broader-based NASDAQ biotech index comprising 209 stocks has also quietly sprang to uncharted territory. True, relative share prices have yet to make the all-time high leap, but have bested the market roughly by 30% year-to-date irrespective of the biotech index or ETF tracked (Chart 6). Importantly, growth stocks in general and biotech stocks in particular perform exceptionally well in a disinflationary growth environment. Therefore biotech stocks are the primary beneficiaries of the Fed’s QE5 and NIRP policies at a time when inflation is missing in action (top panel, Chart 7). Chart 6Earnings-Led Advance This goldilocks backdrop is also evident in the US bank credit impulse that has gone parabolic. When there is flushing liquidity and growth is scarce and declining, investors flock to any growth they can get their hands on (bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Goldilocks Backdrop US dollar based liquidity, also underpins biotech stocks. In recent research, we have been highlighting that the Fed is indirectly targeting the debasing of the greenback. All this excess US dollar liquidity will eventually boost global growth, and reflate corporate earnings via the export relief valve. Biotech stocks will also get a fillip from a depreciating US dollar (Chart 8). Our overweight thesis in biotech was predicated – among other things – upon Big Pharma taking out biotech players and acquiring their coveted drug pipelines. We continue to side with the potential M&A targets, rather than the acquirers. The number of industry M&A deals has reached fever pitch and deal premia are still averaging over 60% (Chart 9). Chart 8Dollar Flooding Is A Boon For Biotech Equities Currently, the global race to find a coronavirus vaccine has further propelled biotech stocks. Indeed, investors are voting with their feet and are betting on a vaccine breakthrough. Thus, the allure of biotech stocks has also increased a notch as the possibility of a vaccine makes their earnings streams even more valuable and desirable to Big Pharma. A mega M&A deal in the space would not take us by surprise. Chart 9M&A Activity Will Remain Robust A few words are in order on the earnings, valuation and technical fronts. While relative share price momentum is galloping higher, it is moving in lockstep with rising earnings estimates (second panel, Chart 10). We would be extremely concerned if this were a multiple expansion driven relative share price advance. In fact, the biotech forward P/E trades both below the historical mean and at a 39% discount to the broad market hovering near an all-time low (Chart 10). Even on a dividend yield basis, biotech stocks are cheap sporting a higher (and safer) dividend yield than the SPX (bottom panel, Chart 10). Chart 10Biotech Stocks Are As Cheap As They Have Ever Been Chart 11Earnings Hurdle Remains Low Finally, relative long-term profit growth euphoria reaching astronomical levels, preceded previous S&P biotech index peaks: three times in the past two decades biotech stocks were projected to surpass SPX profit growth by roughly 10%. The current reading has plunged to negative 1.2% (Chart 11). Netting it all out, the global race for a coronavirus vaccine, robust earnings growth, ample US dollar liquidity and generationally low interest rates suggest that the path of least resistance remains higher for the S&P biotech index.   Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P biotech index, but put it on downgrade alert and set a 5% rolling stop in order to protect profits. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BIOT – ABBV, ALXN, AMGN, BIIB, GILD, INCY, REGN, VRTX. Intra-Real Estate Trade Idea There is an exploitable trade opportunity in the real estate market, preferring residential real estate to commercial real estate (CRE). The cleanest way to play this is via a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade, and we recommend initiating such a market-neutral trade today. Relative performance remains below the upward sloping time trend and at least a mini overshoot phase is in the cards in the coming quarters (Chart 12). One of the key drivers for this pair trade is the ebb and flow of owning versus renting and the current message is positive for homebuilders at the expense of REITs (Chart 13). Chart 12Looming Overshoot Phase Chart 13Own Versus Rent Upswing Is Bullish For The Pair Trade Home ownership has suffered a setback and never reclaimed its pre GFC highs. However, there is pent up demand for single family homes, especially given the recent drubbing of interest rates which should bring first time home buyers back into the market. Millennials up to now have been more of a renter generation, but as household formation increases for the largest cohort in the US, homeownership will make a comeback. One can argue that both real estate segments are interest rate sensitive and that they should benefit from lower rates. However, banks are more willing to lend to consumers in order to buy a home rather than to investors for CRE properties/projects by a factor of 2:1 according to the latest Federal Reserve Senior Loan Officer survey.5 Similarly, whereas demand for CRE loans has collapsed according to the same survey in April, demand for residential real estate loans spiked (top panel, Chart 14). In times of coronavirus-induced social distancing there is a lot more risk associated with CRE versus residential properties. Apartment REITs for example have an element of density-related risk versus the allure of a single family home in the suburbs. Likely social distancing will place a premium on single family homes in coming quarters at the expense of living in high rises in the city. This backdrop bodes well for home prices, but ill for CRE prices which according to Green Street Advisors contracted by 9% in April.6 Keep in mind that residential real estate price only very recently surpassed their 2006 zenith whereas CRE price are still hovering at one standard deviation above the previous peak (Chart 14). Debt deflation is a real threat for CRE prices and given that REITs are at the bottom of this levered asset’s capital structure it is last to collect.  Also the long-term ramifications to demand on CRE are grave compared with residential real estate. On the office REIT segment as an example, we deem that corporations will rethink their often expensive downtown office space requirements and likely downsize, as working from home has become mainstream. The unintended consequence of this realization is that demand for (larger) single family homes will also increase as workers opt to set up more comfortable working spaces at suburban homes. Chart 14Homebuilders Have The Upper Hand Shopping mall REITs are under relentless attack from the Amazonification of the economy and now have to contend with social distancing. The retail shopping experience will never be the same again sustaining the threat of extinction for shopping centers. On the construction front, single family housing starts are breaking ground at the historical mean and way below the 2006 peak run-rate, however, multi-family supply has gone parabolic (Chart 15). These diverging supply conditions are a harbinger of rising relative share prices. Finally, with regard to technicals and valuations homebuilders have the upper hand. Our Technical Indicator is in the neutral zone and relative valuations have collapsed near all-time lows offering a compelling entry point to the pair trade (Chart 16). Chart 15Supply Dynamics Favor Homebuilders Chart 16Relative Pessimism Is Contrarily Positive Netting it all out, relative supply and demand dynamics, social distancing, the pendulum swinging from renting to owing and enticing relative technicals and valuations, all signal that a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade is primed to generate alpha.  Bottom Line: Initiate a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P homebuilding and S&P REITs indexes are: BLBG: S5HOME – LEN, PHM, NVR, DHI, and BLBG: S5REITS – AMT, PLD, CCI, EQIX, DLR, SBAC, PSA, AVB, EQR, WELL, ARE, O, SPG, ESS, WY, MAA, VTR, DRE, PEAK, BXP, EXR, UDR, HST, REG, IRM, VNO, FRT, AIV, KIM, SLG, respectively.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn” dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril” dated April 14, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-bernankes-greatest-challenge/2/ 4    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn” dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5    https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos/sloos-202004.htm 6    https://www.greenstreetadvisors.com/insights/CPPI             Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert)  January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth May 10, 2018 Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%) June 11, 2018 Long the BCA  Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).

Highlights Economic conditions are quite bad, … : Stay-at-home orders have decimated economic activity, giving rise to massive layoffs. … but policy makers embarked on a mighty initial effort to limit the longer-run effects: Mixing emergency GFC programs with bold new initiatives, the Fed has kept markets functioning and restrained defaults. Congress did its part with the CARES Act, opening the fiscal taps full blast to ease the burden on struggling households and businesses. Now the key question is if they’ll have the stomach to do more: Several businesses will not reopen, and it will be some time before nonfarm payrolls regain their peak. Successive waves of monetary and fiscal accommodation may be required to prevent longer-term scarring. Feature If we could have just one data series to assess the health of the economy, we would choose the monthly employment situation report. Though employment is only a coincident indicator, it is a powerfully self-reinforcing series, influencing consumption (Chart 1), fixed investment and future hiring. The unemployment rate also drives most household credit performance models, thereby influencing banks’ willingness to make auto, credit card and mortgage loans. The ripple effects of job losses can lead to a broader tightening of financial conditions, exacerbating downturns. Chart 1As Goes Employment, So Goes Consumption The April release was grim. The headline unemployment rate leaped by ten percentage points to 14.7%, its highest level since the Depression, but it failed to convey the full picture. With greater than 2% of the labor force having been laid off in each of the two weeks following the survey cut-off date, we estimate that the unemployment rate at the end of April was another four percentage points higher. There is a sizable gap between the 38.6 million workers who have filed for unemployment since mid-March and the 17.3 million newly unemployed captured in the March and April household surveys. The labor market data will get worse before it gets better, and we assume that the unemployment rate will peak above 20%. Astonishing numbers of jobs have been lost in the blink of an eye.  To avoid getting caught up in the unemployment rate’s technicalities, we are focusing on the change in employment. The establishment survey’s nonfarm payrolls series1 shrank by 21 million in March and April, or 14% from its February peak. To put the current episode into context, the 6.3% peak-to-trough decline in payrolls that played out over 25 months from February 2008 through February 2010 was previously the worst of the postwar era, dwarfing the typical recessionary payroll contraction of 1.5-3% (Chart 2). Chart 2Payrolls Have Never Shrunk Anything Like This Before Readers who’ve had their fill of the word “unprecedented” can call the employment contraction breathtaking. One mitigating factor, cited by economists inside and outside of the Fed, is that four-fifths of the layoffs have been characterized as temporary (Chart 3). That is certainly a positive, and we don’t doubt that nearly all bars, restaurants, gyms, hotels and concert venues would like to reopen. They surely planned to when stay-at-home orders were initially implemented, but things have changed over the ensuing ten weeks, and a new research paper suggests that only about three-fifths of laid-off workers will be recalled.2 Chart 3Nearly Every Laid-Off Worker Expects To Be Recalled For most of the postwar era, it took about 18 to 24 months for employment to recover its pre-recession peak. With the onset of the twenty-first century’s “jobless recoveries,” however, employment has rebounded much more slowly across cycles. After the dot-com bust and the global financial crisis, it took four and six years, respectively, to make new highs (Chart 4). The combination of manufacturing outsourcing and the ongoing automation of white-collar tasks is likely to make the slower pace of employment recovery the rule. Investors should anticipate that unemployment will linger at elevated levels through 2021 even in the event of an optimistic scenario. Chart 4Employment Doesn't Rebound Like It Used To Congress Versus The Data When employment falls, the virtuous circle in which changes in employment feed into further changes in employment becomes a vicious circle. Falling employment doesn’t just directly weigh on activity via less consumption and fixed investment; it also leads to reduced credit availability via tighter lending standards. With COVID-19 looming as a massive shock to consumer credit performance, Congress rushed to prop up the income streams of households in harm’s way. It began by sending $1,200 checks to more than 60% of taxpayers (single filers with less than $75,000 of adjusted gross income, and married couples with less than $150,000). One-off $1,200 payments could help strapped households, but the CARES Act’s more significant measure provided for a weekly $600 supplement to state unemployment benefits through the end of July. Weekly state-level benefits average about $400. When coupled with the federal supplement, unemployed workers will receive around $1,000 per week, slightly above the average weekly wage. After applying the stimulus check, the average worker will earn 10% more over his/her first three months of joblessness than s/he did when working full time. Why leave the couch when sitting in front of the TV is more lucrative than venturing outside? The Fed is deliberately aiming to keep households and businesses from defaulting. The direct payments3 and the supplemental unemployment benefits could prevent spending from falling, and consumer loan performance from weakening, as much as they otherwise would given the scale of layoffs. The Department of Labor has tracked the share of the average worker’s income that is replaced by unemployment benefits (the replacement rate) since the late nineties. During the two recessions covered by that sample period, laid-off workers received benefits amounting to just 40% of their previous income (Chart 5). Not surprisingly, consumer loan defaults surged (Chart 6). We are hopeful that credit performance through July, the expiration date of the supplemental benefit program, will be much better than simple regression analyses based on the unemployment rate would project, leaving ample room for a positive surprise. Chart 5Unemployment Benefits Typically Replace Just 40% Of Average Income ... Chart 6... But Consumer Borrowers Might Be Able To Stay Current When They Exceed It Powell Versus The Data In his 60 Minutes interview broadcast on May 17th, Fed Chair Jay Powell repeatedly indicated that the Fed is also pursuing a finger-in-the-dike strategy. Early in the interview, after lamenting the seriousness of the COVID-19 shock, he noted, “the good news is that we have policies that can go some way toward minimizing those [hysteresis-like] effects. And that’s by keeping people and businesses out of insolvency just for maybe three or six more months while the health authorities do what they can do. We can buy time with that.” He came back to the short-term-stimulus-to-prevent-long-term-impairment theme toward the end, explicitly referencing credit performance. “[W]e have tools to try to minimize the longer-run damage to the supply side of the economy. And these tools just involve keeping people solvent, keeping them in their homes, keeping them paying their bills just for maybe a few more months. And the same thing with businesses. Keeping them away from Chapter 11 if it’s available.” It seems reasonable to assume that the worst of the public health news will have passed by the fall. If employment were to rebound in line with re-opening measures, six months of active fiscal and monetary support, from March to September, ought to be enough to stave off long-run damage. As the massive scale of the job losses is revealed, however, we are beginning to rethink our own assumptions about when the economy will truly be able to stand on its own. As Chart 4 suggests, it may be unrealistic to think that the US can return to full employment by 2022, especially as the lockdowns may have given businesses lots of ideas about where they can permanently reduce headcount. The Fed is prepared for such a contingency, to hear the Chair tell it: It may well be that the Fed has to do more. It may be that Congress has to do more. And the reason we’ve got to do more is to avoid longer-run damage to the economy. [W]e’re not out of ammunition by a long shot. No, there’s really no limit to what we can do with these lending programs that we have. So there’s a lot more we can do to support the economy, and we’re committed to doing everything we can as long as we need to. Powell’s take did not come as news to markets, even if it helped stocks romp higher the day after the interview was broadcast. The Fed moved with dizzying speed in March, and its measures have been effective. Taking the corporate bond market as an example, spreads narrowed sharply after the primary- and secondary-market corporate credit facilities were announced on March 23rd (Chart 7) and have fallen to a level consistent with a run-of-the-mill recession (Chart 8). Corporate bond issuance set an all-time monthly record in March, then broke it in April, all without the Fed buying a single bond until mid-May. Chart 7The Fed Tamed The Corporate Bond Market Without Firing A Shot ... Chart 8... And Spreads Are Now At Levels Consistent With A Ho-Hum Recession Investment Implications Investors can count on the Fed’s whatever-it-takes pledge, but they shouldn’t expect the Fed to defend the economy from monumental job losses all by itself. States, cities and towns need cash grants to avoid laying off wide swaths of their workforces, and only Congress and the administration can issue them. Despite their public wavering, we do not think that Republicans will want to spurn masses of unemployed voters and their teachers, police and firefighters ahead of the election. Bailout fatigue and deficit worries will make succeeding iterations of aid packages less generous, though. A wave of defaults and business failures would complicate the near-term recovery playbook. Independent of longer-run effects, financial markets will fare better over the next year if fiscal and monetary policy continue to focus on limiting avoidable busts. We think they will, however begrudgingly, but financial markets already discount this benign outcome. Jay Powell is singing the SIFI banks' song. The combination of Fed support and low valuations makes them especially attractive. Relentlessly accentuating the positive leaves risk assets vulnerable in the near term. We continue to expect some sort of an equity correction and have no appetite for anything but the BB-rated top tier of high yield corporates. Over the tactical 0-to-3-month timeframe, we continue to recommend that multi-asset investors maintain a benchmark equity weighting, while underweighting bonds and overweighting cash. We recommend overweighting equities, underweighting bonds and equal-weighting cash over the cyclical 3-to-12-month timeframe. Within bonds, we are underweight Treasuries and high yield, and overweight investment grade, over both timeframes. The SIFI banks will benefit most directly if policymakers are able to limit consumer and business defaults. Chair Powell’s 60 Minutes refrain should have been music to their management teams’ and stockholders’ ears. They are the rare prominent segment of the market that is viewing the glass as half-empty. Investors have a considerable margin of safety buying them at or near their book value and they continue to be our favorite long idea.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The employment situation report is compiled from a survey of households (used to calculate the size of the labor force and the unemployment rate) and a survey of business establishments (used to calculate net employment gains, hours worked and earnings). The foregoing unemployment discussion referenced the household survey; the subsequent discussion and charts reference the establishment survey. 2 Barrero, Jose Maria, Nicholas Bloom and Steven J. Davis, 2020. "COVID-19 Is Also a Reallocation Shock," NBER Working Paper No. 27137. Accessed May 21, 2020. Using historical data samples analyzed by other researchers, and the responses to the Survey of Business Uncertainty, the authors estimate that only 58% of pandemic-induced layoffs will prove to be temporary. 3 Another round of direct payments is being debated on Capitol Hill as we go to press.

Special Report

Feature The crisis surrounding COVID-19 eventually will pass and hopefully life gradually will return to some degree of normality. Even if it is not possible to completely eradicate the virus, we will have to learn to live with it, assuming effective treatments and vaccines become available. The alternative, that no treatments or vaccines will be developed, seems excessively gloomy. But that does not mean economic conditions will quickly return to pre-crisis levels. The severity of the current contraction guarantees that economies initially will see one or two quarters of very strong growth when businesses resume operations. However, it is hard to be positive about the pace of recovery beyond that initial spurt. The job losses have been horrendous, and they will not all be temporary. A University of Chicago study estimated that 42% of recent job layoffs will end up being permanent.1 Many businesses – especially small ones - may decide against reopening given the uncertainty about future revenue growth and/or the restrictions imposed by new physical distancing procedures. Many small businesses are financially fragile with the median company holding less than one month’s cash on hand.2 According to OpenTable, 25% of US restaurants will close permanently. Against this background, considerable fiscal stimulus will not deliver a strong recovery – it merely limits the severity of the downturn. Any short-term forecasts are highly speculative because so much depends on the path of infections. At the bullish end of the spectrum, perhaps the rate of infection will continue to ease in most major countries and a vaccine will become widely available before the end of the year. At the other extreme, the rate of infection could spike back up as economies reopen, leading to a more virulent second wave later this year. And if you want to be really bearish, the virus may mutate, preventing the development of an effective vaccine. After all, there is no vaccine against the common cold and the vaccine for the regular flu has not eradicated that virus. Opinions about the outlook are all over the map and the sad truth is that nobody really knows what will happen. It all underscores the huge challenges facing governments as they try to judge the appropriate pace of restarting economies, opening schools and relaxing social interactions. In this report, I want to look beyond the fog-shrouded near-term outlook and consider the extent to which there may be a lasting impact on economic trends. Specifically, I will focus on the implications of Covid-19 on long-run economic growth, inflation and monetary/fiscal policy. Will Potential Growth Be Infected? Over the long run, an economy expands at its potential rate which is dictated by the growth in the labor force and productivity. How will the Covid-19 crisis affect these trends in the years ahead? As is well known, declining birth rates have led to sharply slowing labor force growth in all the major economies and this trend will continue for at least the next 20 years (Chart 1). The loss of life due to the virus is tragic but is not large enough to have a major impact on population growth. Moreover, the most seriously affected age cohort – those 70 and above – generally are not in the labor force. But two other trends could affect labor force growth: a shift in participation rates and policies toward immigration. The participation rate measures the percentage of the population aged 16 and over that are employed or actively seeking work. In other words, it is the labor force as a percent of the working-age population, typically broken down into different age cohorts. The US participation rate has plunged as a result of recent unprecedented job losses (Chart 2). While it will spike up as the economy reopens, it is far from clear that it will quickly return to pre-crisis levels. Many job losses will be permanent leading to a rise in the number of discouraged workers who give up on seeking new employment. This would depress future labor force growth relative to its pre-crisis expected trend. Chart 1A Poor Demogrpahic Backdrop For Growth Chart 2The US Labor Participation Rate   For many developed countries, immigration provides an important offset to the slow growth or even decline in domestic populations. For the US, projections from the UN imply that net migration will account for more than half of total population growth in the next decade, rising to almost two-thirds in the 2030s, assuming the net migration rate holds at its past rate of around three people per 1000 of population. Even before Covid-19, there was a growing backlash against high levels of immigration in the US and several European countries and this could now be reinforced. Thus, in a post-virus world, labor force growth could be slightly lower than previously projected in some areas. What about productivity, the more important driver of economic growth? Forced shutdowns have required businesses to adapt their operations to survive when revenues have evaporated. This undoubtedly has led to the discovery of several ways to boost efficiency and that should be a permanent change for the better. Moreover, there is now an added incentive to accelerate the adoption of labor-saving and productivity-enhancing artificial intelligence technologies. On the other hand, some changes will be negative for productivity. Factory closures in China clearly highlighted the downside of supply chains being dependent on a small number of distant providers. Companies in the west had increased sourcing from China and other emerging countries for a good reason: it saved a lot money and was thus good for productivity and profits. After all, productivity is all about delivering goods and services of the same or better quality at a lower unit cost. Chart 3Profit Margins Are Headed Lower It seems inevitable that many companies will seek to establish more reliable supply chains and in some cases that will involve onshoring – i.e. bringing back production to home countries. This will bring advantages, but costs will be higher and profit margins correspondingly lower. Profit margins had already peaked from their unsustainably high level and further sharp declines are in prospect. (Chart 3). Globalization has been a very positive force for productivity and a reversal has the opposite effect. A second problem for future productivity is that the outlook for business investment has taken a turn for the worse. The severe damage to corporate balance sheets means that many companies will be less willing and able to embark on new capital spending initiatives. A reduced pace of capital spending will have a negative impact on future productivity growth. A third issue is that new safety protocols will introduce friction into the economic system, much in the way that the response to 9/11 made air travel a much more tedious business. If businesses must take measures to ensure greater physical distancing for both employees and customers, that implies an increased cost with little obvious benefit to efficiency. Finally, another legacy of the virus will be greater government involvement in the economy, something that is not conducive to increased productivity. And in many countries, there is likely to be a shift of resources into healthcare. That may be highly desirable from the perspective of social welfare but it implies fewer resources for other areas. Overall, the above discussion suggests that potential GDP growth in the developed economies will be negatively impacted by the Covid-19 crisis. It is hard to quantify the impact but even a modest reduction in annual growth can have large cumulative effects over time. Economies can grow above potential rates for a while if they are force-fed with rapid credit growth, but that era has passed. The shock of the economic and financial meltdown of 2007-09 was enough to end the love-affair with debt on the part of consumers in the US and many other countries. This is highlighted by the weakness in US mortgage demand in the past decade, despite record-low mortgage rates (Chart 4). At the end of 2019, mortgage applications were no higher than 20 years previously, despite a record-low unemployment rate and the 30-year mortgage rate falling from 8.5% to 3.5% over the period. While mortgage demand and thus household sector credit growth remained strong in the past decade in economies such as Canada, Australia and some European countries, the current crisis likely means that the Debt Supercycle finally has died in those places as well (Chart 5). Financial caution on the part of consumers and many businesses will push up private sector saving rates in the years ahead. Rising private sector saving rates will make it easier to finance large budget deficits but argue against a return to strong economic growth. Chart 4Weak US Mortgage Demand Despite Record Low Yields Chart 5Household Debt: Peaked or Peaking   Inflation Or Deflation? Chart 6A Deflationary Shock This is a controversial question. Clearly, the short-term picture is deflationary – one merely needs to look at the trend in oil and commodity prices (Chart 6). Large negative shocks to demand are by their nature deflationary. And when economies start to open again, many businesses – especially in discretionary areas such as travel and tourism – will be under pressure to offer large discounts to attract customers. And with double-digit unemployment rates, labor will not be in a strong bargaining position when it comes to wages. The bigger uncertainty relates to the longer-term outlook. On the one hand, a world of moderate rather than strong growth does not lend itself to serious inflationary pressures. On the other hand, there will be supply constraints in some areas that have the opposite effect. For example, a lasting decline in airline capacity could lead to upward pressure on airfares: the era of super-cheap air travel may well be over. And, as noted above, a retreat from globalization reverses one of the big drivers of low inflation during the past couple of decades. Even more importantly, there is the issue of monetary and fiscal policy. The policy response to Covid-19 dwarfs even the radical actions during the 2007-9 financial meltdown. Public sector debt levels have soared in response to stimulus spending and collapsing tax receipts and central banks have flooded the system with liquidity. These policy actions typically raise the alarm about a future inflation threat. Chart 7The US Monetary Transmission Process is Impaired Current central bank actions are not inflationary. Previous rounds of quantitative easing (QE) did not lead to higher inflation because the “printed money” largely ended up in bank reserves, not the broader economy. In a post-Debt Supercycle world, easy money is no longer able to trigger a renewed credit boom, and in that sense, the money-credit transmission process is impaired. This is illustrated in Chart 7 by the collapse in the money multiplier (the ratio of broad to narrow money) and the downward trend in money velocity (the ratio of nominal GDP to broad money). QE was great for asset prices but it did not lead to a vibrant economy and rising inflationary pressures. And the same will be true this time around – at least in the next year or so. Central bank actions are keeping the economic shutdown from translating into a financial system shutdown and this is incredibly important. The inflation risks will come later. The current generation of central bankers have been in office during a period of recurring economic shocks and a persistent undershoot of inflation relative to target. When this goes on for long enough, it is sure to affect the perceived balance of risks. In other words, if the bigger threat is believed to be weak growth rather than inflation, then that will encourage policymakers to err on the side of ease, raising the odds that inflation will at some point surprise on the upside. Chart 8Markets Are Not Priced For Higher Long-Run Inflaton It is easy to see why the authorities may not be overly concerned with a period of higher inflation. It could be justified as an offset to the many years where inflation ran below desired levels. And it would help lower the burden of bloated government debt. And central banks could thwart a revolt by bond vigilantes against inflation by buying up any bonds the private sector was not willing to purchase. A return to a 1970s world of rampant inflation is not in prospect. Back then, policy complacency was accompanied by a formidable combination of strong labor unions, buoyant commodity prices, poor corporate productivity and embedded inflation expectations on the part of both business managers and workers. Those conditions no longer exist and are unlikely to re-emerge to any significant degree. Thus, we are not headed for double-digit inflation. But inflation could well get back into the 4% to 5% range in a few years’ time. And the markets are not priced for this with 5-year CPI swap rates at 0.8%, and 10-year swap rates at 1.3% (Chart 8). Policy At The Extremes We are in the midst of an extraordinary surge in government deficits and debt. The age-old concern that large fiscal deficits lead to higher interest rates and thus crowd out private investment is not applicable in the current environment. Central bank policies of QE and anchoring short rates at zero, along with investor demand for safe assets, are keeping bond yields at historically low levels. And none of that will change any time soon. Nevertheless, fiscal trends do matter. Economies eventually will recover and it will not be appropriate for central banks to keep interest rates at zero indefinitely. As interest rates rise, public sector debt arithmetic will turn uglier. This will leave the authorities with tough choices as the growing cost of debt servicing will eat into the revenues available for other spending programs. And this will occur when deficits will already be under persistent upward pressure from rising pension and health-care costs of an aging population. The direct impact of fiscal policy on economic growth reflects the changes in budget deficits, not their levels. Thus, for policy to remain stimulative, underlying deficits would have to keep rising as a share of GDP. That does not seem likely once economies stabilize and governments scale back current relief programs. For example, the latest IMF projections show general government deficits as a share of GDP for the G7 economies rising from 3.8% in 2019 to 12% in 2020, then falling back to 6.2% in 2021. Those swings partly reflect the cyclical impact of recession and recovery on revenues and spending, rather than discretionary changes in policy. In other words, the move in the cyclically-adjusted deficit would be less extreme. Nonetheless, it highlights that in the absence of continued new stimulus measures, fiscal policy will become more restrictive. Given the prospect of a moderate recovery, fiscal imbalances will not diminish quickly. Meanwhile, there will be pressure for increased spending on health care and transfers to financially-strapped regional/local governments. And there is talk in some countries of the need to create a basic income program for all households. That would be a hugely expensive project, even allowing for offsetting changes to tax systems. On the subject of taxes, it is inevitable that rates will have to increase given budget constraints and the need to fund high levels of spending. The bottom line is that the current environment of fiscal profligacy cannot persist. In the heat of the pandemic and economic shutdown there is no limit on what governments are prepared to do. And the markets are not providing any constraints on policymakers. After things calm down, the harsh reality of unprecedented public debt burdens eventually will prove a huge challenge to the authorities. Advocates of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) are not overly concerned about this because they believe central banks can finance any amount of public deficits with no adverse impact on the economy. But there is a caveat: this is sustainable only for as long as inflation stays under control. If inflation rises, then even MMT argues for fiscal discipline. How will it all play out? There is no chance that developed economies will be able to grow out of their public debt problems and we should rule out explicit default. And there will not be any stomach for the degree of austerity that would be required to bring deficits back to reasonable levels. That leaves monetization as the likely end point. And that implies monetary policy being kept easier than economic conditions warrant, leading eventually to higher inflation. The Short Run Trumps The Long Run, But… This report has speculated about some of the long-run implications of the current environment. Those hardly seem to matter during a crisis and the associated massive uncertainty about what will happen economically, politically, financially and socially over the coming year. Never has Keynes’ dictum “In the long run we are all dead” seemed more apposite. Worries about long-term trends in inflation and/or public debt seem misplaced relative to more immediate concerns. In terms of a well-used analogy, if a building is on fire, the imperative is to put out the flames. The problems caused by water damage can be dealt with later because otherwise, there may not be any building left to repair. Nevertheless, investment decisions should not focus exclusively on the short run – especially when the range of possible outcomes is so vast. The 37 years from end-1982 to end-2019 were an extraordinary period for investors with total returns from global equities compounding at 10.3% a year and long-term bonds not far behind. And this was despite two vicious equity bear markets with the world index dropping by more than 50% between March 2000 and October 2002 and again between October 2007 and March 2009. There is no other comparable 37-year period in history where both bonds and stocks have delivered such strong returns. The key was a very favorable starting point: both equities and bonds were very cheap in late 1982 with the world index trading at around 10 times earnings and 10-year Treasurys offering a real yield of around 7%. We currently have very different valuations. The price-earnings ratio for world equities currently is more than 17 and real bond yields are negative. These are not good starting points for potential long-run returns. With nominal yields below 1%, bond returns will be minimal over the next decade. Stocks should do better given that the dividend yield is above bond yields, but returns will be very modest by historical standards (see Table 1). Table 110-Year Asset Return Projections Concluding Thoughts Much is being written about how Covid-19 will affect the way economies operate in future and how we will all be forced to conduct our lives. Many believe that the virus is a major game changer with some of the changes that have resulted from the crisis becoming a permanent feature. Of course, it is all highly speculative. I am skeptical that there will be lasting major changes in social behavior. People tend to have short memories and, with the critical assumption that vaccines and treatments become available, I expect that we will return to our old habits. People will go back on cruises, pack into bars and restaurants and attend large sporting and cultural events. In other words, life will go on much as before. But the virus will lead to some economic and political effects, both good and bad. On the bad side, the path to economic recovery will be rocky and long-run growth is likely to be negatively affected. And current extreme actions will leave future monetary and fiscal policy massively constrained in dealing with a world of sluggish growth. Meanwhile, inflation could eventually become a problem and the drift toward economic and political nationalism will be reinforced. On a more positive note, businesses are finding new ways to boost efficiency and maybe there will be progress in reducing extreme levels of inequality. We are all in the unfortunate position of being bystanders to an ongoing crisis. There are no compelling historical precedents to light the way forward and every government is struggling to find the right balance between reviving economic activity and preserving lives. In the face of such massive uncertainty, it makes sense to adopt a cautious near-term investment strategy. Hopes that risk assets can be supported solely by hyper-easy monetary policies seem very complacent in my view. The strong bounce in equity prices from their March lows suggests that this is not a bad time to de-risk portfolios.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Chief Economist mbarnes@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Jose Maria Barrero, Nick Bloom, and Steven J. Davis, "COVID-19 Is Also a Reallocation Shock," Beker Friedman Institute, May 5, 2020. 2 Alexander W. Bartik, Marianne Bertrand, Zoë B. Cullen, Edward L. Glaeser, Michael Luca, Christopher T. Stanton, "How are Small Businesses Adjusting to Covid-19? Early Evidence From A Survey," NBER Working Paper 26989, April 2020.

Highlights EM QE programs will ensure that EM local currency bond yields will drop further. However, the impact of these EM QE programs on EM currencies is ambiguous. Continue receiving long-term swap rates in a number of EM economies. QE programs globally constitute public debt monetization. A stronger money supply does not in itself constitute a sufficient reason to expect a rise in inflation rates. However, DM and EM QE programs could fuel financial market manias. Feature Chart I-1Broad Money Is Booming In DM And Accelerating In EM In this report we discuss the various quantitative easing programs (QEs) that have begun to surface in emerging economies. This is a new phenomenon that will likely mark a major precedent for EM central banks. Over time, these programs will likely become more prominent tools in EM. Understanding these unorthodox monetary policy easing measures in EM and DM is of paramount importance to investors. We use a Q&A format to discuss and elaborate on this topic. Question: What has forced the authorities to launch QE programs in EM and what forms have they taken? Answer: QE programs in developing countries are in their infancy. Several governments launched them in haste in the month of March in response to the recession and panic selloff that was occurring across global financial markets. These programs will be shaped by different forces and take different forms over time. Generally, QE programs are implemented in order to: (1) halt the abrupt deleveraging among local commercial banks amid the COVID-19 crisis (2) ensure credit continues to flow to the real economy (companies and households) (3) bring down long-term interest rates and prevent large government borrowings from crowding out the private sector. In addition to slashing policy rates, many EM central banks (CBs) are implementing one or more of the following initiatives to achieve these objectives: I.  Providing unlimited liquidity to commercial banks through various facilities II.  Buying government bonds III. Conducting direct purchases of local currency corporate bonds and, in some cases, mortgage-backed securities IV. Direct lending to non-banks such as mutual funds and enterprises V. Expanding the range of public and private sector securities that can be used as collateral when lending to banks The second, third and fourth types of operations can be considered forms of QE to the extent that they fall beyond the scope of customary CB operations. The latest QEs qualify as public debt monetization. This is also true for the QEs in advanced economies. Table I-1 provides information about various central bank policies across mainstream EM countries. Details are still limited regarding the technicalities, quantity and timelines of some of these measures. Table I-1Quantitative Easing Policies Annouced By Emerging Economies Question: Do these QEs represent a public debt and fiscal deficit monetization? Answer: Yes, monetary and fiscal policies are being coordinated and these QEs qualify as public debt monetization. This is also true for the QEs in advanced economies. These QE policies have been designed to ensure that the cost of government borrowing does not rise amid the surge in public sector borrowing requirements. Especially at a time when foreign investors were abandoning EM financial markets. Governments have deployed large fiscal stimulus packages to offset the devastating economic impact of COVID-19 induced shutdowns. Coupled with a collapse in fiscal revenues, this has resulted in a widening of fiscal deficits and large borrowing requirements. Chart I-2EM QEs Are Intended To Drive Down Local Bond Yields EM local currency government bond yields spiked in March (Chart I-2). This prompted CBs in many EMs to announce government bond purchasing programs in order to bring down government bond yields. Government bond yields influence other interest rates such as those for consumer and business loans. Higher borrowing costs amid a deep recession would have been lethal for corporate and household debtors. Additionally, it would have materially damaged public debt dynamics. To bring down government bond yields and ensure that policy rate cuts translate into lower borrowing costs across the entire yield curve, CBs have begun purchasing government bonds in the following developing countries: Brazil, South Africa, Poland, Colombia, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Korea. Government bond yields in many EMs have declined since mid-March (Chart I-2). That could be at least partially attributed to EM CBs’ QE programs. CB purchases of government bonds in either primary or secondary markets, qualify as public debt monetization. Question: How are QEs different from conventional CB operations and what makes them so unique as to warrant investor attention? Answer: There are three things that distinguish these QE initiatives from traditional CB operations: First, CBs do not typically lend to non-banks. They do not lend to or purchase credit instruments issued by non-banks. Hence, by purchasing corporate bonds and issuing loans to non-banks, CBs have entered into unchartered territory. This is also true for the Federal Reserve and CBs in other advanced economies. Second, by buying government bonds CBs are conducting an outright monetization of public debts and fiscal deficits. This is true for central banks in both EM and DM. Outside QEs, monetary authorities typically set the short-term interest rate and provide enough liquidity to the banking system to keep short-term interbank rates on par with policy rates. Chart I-3Fed’s Ownership Of Treasurys Prior to the launch of QE programs, CB operations with long-term government bonds were limited in scope and often technical in nature. For example, the Fed’s ownership of US Treasury securities rose by only 40% from $550 billion in 2002 to $775 billion in 2006. By comparison, it has doubled from $2 trillion to $4 trillion since September 2019 (Chart I-3). When CBs buy government bonds en masse, as they are currently doing in many countries, we are no longer talking about open market operations, but rather the monetization of public debt. Third, by launching QEs, CBs affect long-term interest rates. When financial markets are malfunctioning, which results in unjustifiably elevated long-term interest rates and cost of capital, QEs become essential to ensure the monetary policy transmission channel is operating effectively.  Nevertheless, as we have seen in the cases of the ECB and Bank of Japan, the use of QEs can become addictive. Once CBs have deployed QEs, they have a hard time abandoning them. When the financial systems and markets get accustomed to zero or negative nominal interest rates and to a constant overflow of CB liquidity, the termination of QEs will be disruptive and painful. Consequently, there is a risk that both DM and EM CBs will end up overdoing it with QEs - suppress long-term interest rates too much, for too long and for no justifiable reason. This will in turn lead to misallocations of capital, asset bubbles and other distortions in financial markets and real economies. If the velocity of money recovers to its pre-pandemic levels amid the massive expansion of money supply, inflation will rise even if real output returns to its potential pace. Question: Is it fair to say that QEs lead only to an increase in commercial banks’ excess reserves at the CB, and that they have no real impact on the money supply? In other words, if commercial banks do not lend, is it true that the money supply will not expand and, thereby, QEs will never lead to higher rates of inflation?  Answer: Not really. QEs have a much more nuanced impact on the money supply. Moreover, the relationship between the money supply and the inflation rate is not straightforward. We will consider several examples, dissecting the impact of QEs on both excess reserves (ER) and the money supply. But first, let us recall that the broad money supply is the sum of both the cash in circulation and all types of deposits in commercial banks, including demand, time and savings deposits. Commercial banks’ ER at CBs are not included in either the narrow or broad definitions of money supply. Case 1: When a central bank purchases securities from or lends to a bank, ER rise although no deposit is created, so the money supply does not change.  Case 2: When a central bank purchases securities from or lends money to non-banks, this transaction creates both an ER and a new deposit in commercial banks, meaning that the money supply does increase. Case 3: When a commercial bank buys securities from or lends to non-banks, ER do not change while a new deposit is created “out of thin air”, so that the money supply rises. Conversely, when a bank sells a security to a non-bank, or a non-bank repays a loan, the money supply (i.e. the amount of deposits in the banking system) shrinks. To sum up, QEs lead to a larger money supply when CBs purchase assets from or lend to non-banks. When CBs purchase assets from banks, no new money (deposits) are created. Importantly, the money supply also expands when commercial banks buy securities from or lend to non-banks. Chart I-4A and I-4B reveal that QEs in the US, the UK, Japan and the euro area, over the past 10 or so, years have created a lot of ER but little money supply. Chart I-4AExcess Reserves Have Expanded More Than Broad Money In US, Japan… Chart I-4B… Euro Area And UK   In China, the broad money supply has been exploding since 2009. The commercial banks have, on their own, generated an enormous increase in the money supply “out of thin air”, by making loans to and buying securities from non-banks, even though there has been much less ER creation from the PBoC (Chart I-5). The top panel of Chart I-6 illustrates the remarkable evolution of broad money supply in China versus the US, the euro area and Japan. In the chart, broad money supply in these four economies is plotted along the same scale, since January 2009, when QEs began in DM and the credit boom commenced in China. Even though ERs have expanded much more in the US, the euro area and Japan (Chart I-6, bottom panel), broad money growth in China outstripped all other economies by a large margin (Chart I-6, top panel). Chart I-5Excess Reserves Have Expanded Less Than Broad Money In China Chart I-6Broad Money And Excess Reserves: China Versus DM     As we discussed in our previous reports on money, credit and savings, money supply growth is not at all contingent on savings in an economy. Rather, outside of QEs money in all countries is primarily created by the commercial banks when they lend to or purchase assets from non-banks. Still, the nature of QE is now changing in the US. Chart I-7 reveals that the broad money supply is booming faster than it ever has, since World War II. As the Fed lends directly to businesses and purchases corporate bonds that are largely held by non-banks, the money supply will explode in the US, alongside a surge in ER. Chart I-7US Money Growth: The Sky Is The Limit Chart I-8April Datapoints Suggest Notable EM Money Growth Acceleration Similar trends will occur in EM and other DM (Chart I-8): as their CBs buy securities from non-banks, they will simultaneously create both ER and new deposits at commercial banks (money supply). Question: Does this potential explosion in money supply globally – and in the US in particular – imply that there is an imminent risk of an inflation outbreak in the real economy? Answer: A stronger money supply does not in itself constitute a sufficient reason to expect a rise in inflation rates. Inflation (rising prices of goods and services) also depends on the velocity of money and the productive capacity of an economy. Nominal GDP = Velocity of Money x Money Supply In turn, Nominal GDP = Output Volume x Prices Hence, Output Volume x Prices = Velocity of Money x Money Supply Finally, Prices = (Velocity of Money x Money Supply) / Output Volume. Therefore, inflation is contingent not only on the money supply but also on the velocity of money and the output volume. The money supply will continue surging in the US and will boom in the rest of the world as other CBs also deploy QEs (Chart I-7 and I-8). However, the surge in money supply has so far been offset by a lower velocity of money (Chart I-9Aand I-9B). The velocity of money reflects the willingness of consumers and businesses to spend their money. Chart I-9AVelocity Of Money Dropped In March Chart I-9BVelocity Of Money Dropped In March If the velocity of money recovers to its pre-pandemic levels amid the massive expansion of money supply, inflation will rise. In a nutshell, money growth will be booming worldwide due to QEs but the velocity of money, or the willingness to spend, will be the critical factor in determining inflation dynamics in the months and years to come. Question: Will the current excessive creation of money leak into asset prices and produce asset bubbles? Answer: It could. As we discussed in our January report titled, A Primer On Liquidity, an abundant money supply is conducive to higher asset prices and bubbles, but it is not a sufficient condition. Investors should be willing to allocate money to financial assets in order for the latter to appreciate. For example, since the beginning of this year, global risk assets have gone through an enormous roller-coaster ride. Through mid-February, risk assets were buoyant and the oft-cited rationale for the rally was plentiful liquidity. Then, from mid-February on through late March, we witnessed historic liquidity crunches across all financial markets, including US Treasurys. It is crucial to note that neither ER in the global banking system, nor global narrow and broad money slowed down during that period (Chart I-1 on page 1 and Charts I-4A and I-4B on page 6). Investors were simply liquidating financial assets and raising their cash level. Since late March, risk assets have been rallying as investors have felt more comfortable taking on more risk. Overall, whether ballooning money supply flows into financial assets or not is contingent on the willingness of all types of investors to deploy their deposits into financial markets. Just as price inflation in the real economy is dependent on the willingness of consumers and businesses to spend their money on goods and services, financial asset price appreciation is contingent on the animal spirit of all investors and their inclination to take on more risk. Whether ballooning money supply flows into financial assets or not is contingent on the willingness of all types of investors to deploy their deposits into financial markets. Question: How does the stock of US dollars (the broad money supply) compare with the value of US-denominated securities available to investors? Has the Fed’s purchases of securities not shrunk the amount of publicly-traded securities available to investors? Answer: Yes, indeed, they have. One of the distortions that the Fed’s and other CBs' QEs created has been the shrinkage of publicly-traded bonds and stocks. This has certainly lifted asset prices to levels they would have otherwise not reached. Chart I-10 plots the ratio of the US broad money supply-to-the market value of all US dollar-denominated securities. The US broad money supply represents all US dollars in the world – in cash and in electronic bank deposits. The denominator is the market capitalization of US denominated stocks and all types of bonds held by non-bank investors. It is calculated as the sum of the following: US equity market capitalization (the Wilshire 5000); the market cap values of all US-dollar bonds, including government, corporate, mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities and commercial mortgage backed securities (the Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Index); and the market cap value of US dollar-denominated bonds issued by EM governments and corporations; minus the Fed’s and US commercial banks’ holdings of all types of securities. Chart I-10The US: Broad Money Supply Relative To Equity And Bond Market Capitalization The higher this ratio, the more US dollar deposits, or liquidity, is available per one dollar of market value of outstanding securities – excluding those held by the Fed and US commercial banks. Based on the past 25 years, this ratio is somewhat elevated meaning that liquidity is relatively abundant. However, as argued above, animal spirits among investors are as important in driving financial asset prices as the amount of money supply. Question: What will happen to exchange rates in general, and to EM currencies in particular, given that almost every country in the world is expanding its money supply, simultaneously? Answer: There is no stable correlation between the relative money supply of two individual economies and their bi-lateral exchange rate. In addition, this is the first time that QEs are being deployed in both DM and EM countries at the same time. Therefore, there is no easy and straightforward answer to this question. Chart I-11EM Currencies: A Bounce Or Beginning Of A Cyclical Rally? We recommend using the following framework to think about EM exchange rates versus the US dollar, at the moment: 1. EM currencies in aggregate will continue to be driven by global growth, as they have been historically. Chart I-11 illustrates that the EM ex-China currency index correlates with industrial commodity prices. The basis for this correlation is that they are both driven by the global business cycle. So far, the advance in both EM exchange rates and industrial commodities has been tame. It is still not clear if this is merely a rebound from very oversold levels or rather the beginning of a cyclical rally. 2. The rampant expansion of US money supply will eventually lead to the greenback’s depreciation. However, for the US dollar to depreciate against EM currencies, the following two conditions should be satisfied: US imports should expand, meaning that the US should send dollars to the rest of the world by buying goods and services. This has not yet happened though, as domestic demand in America has plunged and any demand recovery in the next three to six months will be tame and muted. US investors should channel US dollars to EM to purchase EM financial assets. 3. From an individual EM perspective, there are several scenarios to consider: If a country’s QE: materially boosts its real growth, its currency will rally in spite of ongoing domestic QE; fails to meaningfully boost growth, its exchange rate will weaken; produces a rapid rise in inflation, its currency will depreciate; is used to finance unsustainable public debt dynamics, its currency will depreciate. As we have written in the recent reports, this could very well be the case in Brazil and South Africa. Investment Conclusions We expect EM local yields to fall further. For absolute-return investors we continue to recommend receiving swap rates in Korea, China, India, Malaysia, Russia, Colombia and Mexico. Our country allocation for EM local currency bond portfolios is always presented at the end of our reports on page 15. We continue shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, ZAR, PHP, IDR and KRW. However, if the strength in EM currencies persists in the near term, we will close our short positions. Continue underweighting EM equities and credit within global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. Within the EM credit space, favor sovereign to corporate credit. On that issue, please refer to our April 22, Special Report on EM foreign currency debt. For dedicated EM equity managers, we recommend overweighting Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Russia, central Europe, Mexico and Peru. Our underweights are Indonesia, India, the Philippines, the UAE, South Africa and Brazil. Please refer to our Open Position Table on page 14. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Special Report

What Can 1918/1919 Teach Us About COVID-19?    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana – 1905   Chart 1Coronavirus: As Contagious But Not As Deadly As Spanish Flu Today’s economy is very different to that of 100 years ago. Many countries then were in the middle of World War I (which ended in November 1918). The characteristics of the Spanish Flu which struck the world in 1918 and 1919 were also different to this year’s pandemic. COVID-19 is almost as contagious as the Spanish Flu, but it is much less deadly (Chart 1). Healthcare systems and treatments today are far more advanced than those of a century ago: many people who caught Spanish flu died of complications caused by bacterial pneumonia, given the absence of antibiotics. Influenza viruses tend to mutate rapidly: the influenza virus in 1918 first mutated to become far more virulent in its second wave, and then to become much milder. Coronaviruses have a “proofreading” capacity and mutate less easily.1  Nevertheless, an analysis of the pandemic of 100 years ago provides a number of insights into the current crisis, particularly now that policymakers are easing social-distancing rules to help the economy, even at the risk of more cases and deaths. Among the lessons of 1918-1919: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) do lower mortality rates. The speed at which NPIs are implemented and the period of implementation are as important as the number of measures taken. Removing or relaxing measures too early can lead to a renewed rise in mortality rates. It is hard to compare current fiscal and monetary policies to those taken during the 1918 pandemic, since policy in both areas was already easy before the pandemic as a result of the world war. However, a severe pandemic would certainly call for a wartime-like fiscal and monetary response. The economy was negatively impacted by the pandemic in 1918-19 but, despite the shock to industrial activity and employment, the economy subsequently rebounded quickly, in a V-shaped recovery. Introduction Predicting how the economy will react to the COVID-19 pandemic is hard. Governments and policymakers face multiple uncertainties: How effective are different containment measures? Will cases and deaths rebound quickly if lockdown measures are eased? When will the coronavirus disappear? When will a vaccine be ready? With an event unprecedented in the experience of anyone alive today, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from history. For this Special Report, we attempt to draw some parallels between the current situation and the 1918-19 Spanish flu. We focus on the different containment efforts implemented, the role that fiscal and monetary policies played, the impact on markets and the economy, and whether history can throw any light on how the COVID-19 crisis might pan out. The 1918 Spanish Flu Chart 2The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most lethal in modern history. Soldiers returning from World War I helped spread the pandemic across the globe. The first recorded case is believed to have been in an army camp in Kansas. While there is no official count, researchers estimate that about 500 million people contracted the virus globally, with a mortality rate of between 5% and 10%. The pandemic occurred over three waves in 1918 and 1919 – the first in the spring of 1918, the second (and most deadly) in the fall of 1918, and the third in spring 1919 (Chart 2). In the US alone, official data estimate that around 500,000 deaths (or over 25% of all deaths) in 1918 and 1919 were caused by pneumonia and influenza.2 The pandemic moved swiftly to Europe and reached Asia by mid-1918, but became more lethal only towards the end of the year (Map 1).3 Map 1The Spread Of Influenza Through Europe Initially, scientists were puzzled by the origin of the influenza and its biology. It was not until a decade later, in the early 1930s, that Richard Shope isolated the particular influenza virus from infected pigs, confirming that a virus caused the Spanish Flu, not a bacterium as most had thought. Many of those who caught this strain of influenza died as a result of their lungs filling with fluid in a severe form of pneumonia. In reporting death rates, then, it is considered best practice to include deaths from both influenza and pneumonia. The first wave had almost all the hallmarks of a seasonal flu, albeit of a highly contagious strain. Symptoms were similar and mortality rates were only slightly higher than a normal influenza. The first wave went largely unnoticed given that deaths from pneumonia were common then. US public health reports show that the disease received little attention until it reappeared in a more severe form in Boston in September 1918.4  Most countries did not begin investigating and reporting cases until the second wave was underway (Chart 3). Chart 3Most Countries Began Reporting Only When The Second Wave Hit This second wave – which was more lethal because the virus had mutated – had a unique characteristic. Unlike the typical influenza mortality curve – which is usually “U” shaped, affecting mainly the very young and elderly – the 1918 influenza strain had a “W”-shaped mortality curve – impacting young adults as well as old people (Chart 4). This pattern was evident in all three waves, but most pronounced during the second wave. The reason for this was that the infection caused by the influenza became hyperactive, producing a “cytokine storm” – when mediators secreted from the immune system result in severe inflammation.5 Simply put, as the virus became virulent, the body’s immune system overworked to fight it. Younger people, with strong immune systems, suffered most from this phenomenon. Chart 4A Unique Characteristic: Impacting Younger Adults By the summer of 1919, the pandemic was over, since those who had been infected had either died or recovered, therefore developing immunity. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess if “herd immunity” was achieved. However, some historical accounts and research – particularly for army groups in the US and the UK – suggest that those exposed to the disease in the first mild wave were not affected during the second more severe wave.6 The failure to define the causative pathogen at the time made development of a vaccine impossible. Nevertheless, some treatments and remedies showed modest success. These varied from using a serum – obtained from people who had recovered, who therefore had antibodies against the disease – to simple symptomatic drugs and various oils and herbs. The Effectiveness Of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) What we today call “social distancing” showed positive effects during the 1918-19 pandemic. These included measures very similar to those applied today: school closures, isolation and quarantines, bans on some sorts of public gatherings, and more. However, there were few travel bans.  The number of passengers carried during the months of the pandemic did noticeably decline though (Chart 5). Chart 5Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough Table 1, based on research by Hatchett, Mecher and Lipsitch, breaks down NPIs by type for 17 major US cities. Most cities implemented a wide range of interventions. But it was not only the type of NPIs implemented that made a difference, but also the speed and length of implementation. Table 1Measures Applied Then Are Very Similar To Those Applied Today Further research by Markel, Lipman and Navarro based on 43 US cities shows that the median number of days between the first reported influenza case and the first NPI implementation was over two weeks. The median period during which various NPIs were implemented was about six weeks (Table 2). Table 2NPIs Were Implemented Only For Short Periods Markel, Lipman and Navarro's findings show that a rapid public-health response was an important factor in reducing the mortality rate by slowing the rate of infection, what we now refer to as “flattening the curve.” There were major differences in cities’ policies: both the speed at which they implement NPIs, and the length of the implementation period. Chart 6 shows that: Cities that acted quickly to implement NPIs slowed the rate of infections and deaths (Chart 6, panel 1) Cities that acted quickly had lower mortality rates from influenza and pneumonia (Chart 6, panel 2) Cities that implemented NPIs for longer periods had fewer deaths (Chart 6, panel 3) Chart 7 quantifies the number of NPIs taken, the time it took to implement the measures, and the length of NPIs to gauge policy strictness. Cities with stricter enforcement had lower death rates than those with laxer measures. Chart 6Fast Response And Longer Implementation Led To Fewer Deaths... Chart 7...So Did Policy Strictness For example, Kansas City, less than a week after its first reported case, had implemented quarantine and isolation measures. By the second week, schools, churches, and other entertainment facilities closed. Schools reopened a month later (in early November) but quickly shut again until early January 1919.  While we do not have definitive dates on when each NPI was lifted, some sort of protective measures in Kansas City were in place for almost 170 days. By contrast, Philadelphia, one of the cities hardest hit by Spanish Flu, took more than a month to implement any measures. Its tardiness meant that it reached a peak mortality rate much more quickly: in 13 days compared to 31 days for Kansas City. Even after the first reported case, the Liberty Loans Parade was still held on September 28, 1918 – with the knowledge that hundreds of thousands of spectators might be vulnerable to infection.7,8 It was not until a few days later that institutions were closed and a ban on public gatherings was imposed. Many other cities also held a Liberty Loans Parade, including Pittsburgh and Washington DC, but Philadelphia’s was the deadliest. Studies also show that relaxing interventions too early could be as damaging as implementing them too late. St. Louis, for example, was quick to lift restrictions and suffered particularly badly in the second wave as a result. It later reinstated NPIs up until end of February 1919. Other cities that eased restrictions too early (San Francisco and Minneapolis, for example) also suffered from a second swift, albeit milder, increase in weekly excess death rates from pneumonia and influenza (Chart 8). Chart 8Relaxing Lockdown Measures Too Early Can Lead To A Second Rise In Deaths... Chart 9...And So Can Highly Effective Measures Of course, NPIs cannot be implemented indefinitely. A recent research paper by Bootsma and Ferguson raises the point that suppressing a pandemic may not be the best strategy because it just leaves some people susceptible to infection later. They argue that highly effective social distancing measures, which allow a susceptible pool of people to reintegrate into society when the measures are lifted, are likely to lead to a resurgence in infections and fatalities in a second peak (Chart 9).9 They suggest an optimal level of control measures to reduce R (the infection rate) to a value that makes a significant portion of the population immune once measures are lifted.   The Impact Of The Spanish Flu On The Economy And Markets How did the Spanish Flu pandemic affect the economy? Many pandemic researchers ignore the official recession identified by the NBER during the months of the pandemic (between August 1918 and March 1919).10 The reason is that most of the evidence indicates that the economic effects of the 1918-19 pandemic were short-term and relatively mild.11 Disentangling drivers of the economy is, indeed, tricky given that WW1 ended in November 1918. However, it is easy to underestimate the negative impact of the pandemic since the war had such a big impact on the economy, as well as investor and public sentiment. Various research papers support the fact that, while the pandemic did indeed have an adverse effect on the economy, NPIs did not just depress mortality rates, but also sped the post-pandemic economic recovery.12 Research by Correia, Sergio, and Luck showed that the areas most severely affected by the pandemic saw a sharp and persistent decline in real economic activity, whereas cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively, experienced a relative increase in economic activity post the pandemic.13 Their findings are based on the increase in manufacturing employment after the pandemic compared to before it (1919 versus 1914). However, note that the rise of manufacturing payrolls in 1919 was high everywhere given the return of soldiers post-WWI. The researchers also note that those cities hardest hit by the pandemic also saw a negative impact on manufacturing activity, the stock of durable goods, and bank assets. Because Spanish flu disproportionately killed younger adults, many families lost their breadwinner. In economic terms, this implies both a negative supply shock and negative demand shock. If fewer employees are available to produce a certain good, supply will fall. The same reduction in employment also implies reduced income and therefore lower purchasing power. Both cases will result in a decrease in output. However, the change in prices depends on the decline of supply relative to demand. In 1918-19, the impact was disinflationary: demand declined by more than supply, and both spending and consumer prices fell during the pandemic (Chart 10). Chart 10Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary US factory employment fell by over 8% between March 1918 and March 1919 – the period from the beginning of the first wave until the end of the second wave. It is important to note, however, that few businesses went bankrupt during the pandemic years (Chart 11). Additionally, the November 1918 Federal Reserve Bulletin highlighted that many cities, including New York, Kansas City, and Richmond, experienced a shortage of labor due to the influenza.14  Factory employment in New York fell by over 10% during this period.  Chart 11Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners The link between the labor shortages and the decline in industrial production is unclear. Industrial activity in the US peaked just before the second wave, contracting by over 20% during the second wave (Chart 12). Various industries reported disruptions: automobile production fell by 67%, anthracite coal production and shipments fell by around 45%, and railroad freight revenues declined by over seven billion ton-miles (Chart 12, panels 2, 3 & 4). However, some of this decline is attributed to falling defense production after the war. Chart 12Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly Chart 13The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic The equity market moved in a broad range in 1915-1919 and fell sharply only ahead of the 1920 recession (Chart 13). Seemingly, stock market participants were more focused on the war than the pandemic. The lack of reporting of the pandemic could have contributed to this: newspapers were encouraged to avoid carrying bad news for reasons of patriotism and did not widely cover the pandemic until late 1918.15   Chart 14Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started The Federal Reserve played an active role in funding the government’s spending on the war, and so monetary policy was very easy during the pandemic – but for other reasons. The Fed used its position as a lender to the banking system to facilitate war bond sales.16 Interest rates were cut in 1914 and 1915 even before the US entered the war. The US economy had been in recession between January 1913 and December 1914. Policy rates remained low throughout 1916 and 1917 and slightly rose in 1918 and 1919. It was not until 1920 that Federal Reserve Bank System tightened policy rapidly to choke off inflation, which accelerated to over 20% in mid-1920 – rising inflation being a common post-war phenomenon (Chart 14). The Lessons Of 1918-19 For The Coronavirus Pandemic Non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue to be implemented until a vaccine, effective therapeutic drugs, or mass testing is available. Relaxing measures prematurely is as damaging as a tardy reaction to the pandemic. Reacting quickly and imposing multiple measures for longer periods not only reduces mortality rates, but also improves economic outcomes post-crisis. The economy suffers in the short-term: supply and demand shocks lead to lower output. The demand shock however is larger leading to lower prices and disinflationary pressures, at least during and immediately after the pandemic.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see the Q&A with immunologist and Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty, published by BCA Research April 1st 2020: BCA Research Special Report, “Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers,” available at bcaresearch.com 2 Please see “Leading Cause of Death, 1990-1998,” CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 3 Please see Ansart S, Pelat C, Boelle PY, Carrat F, Flahault A, Valleron AJ, “Mortality burden of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in Europe,” NCBI. 4 Please see Public Health Report, vol. 34, No. 38, Sept. 19, 1919. 5 Please see Qiang Liu, Yuan-hong Zhou, Zhan-qiu Yang Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan; 13(1): 3–10. 6 Please see Shope, R. (1958) Public Health Rep. 73, 165–178. 7 The Liberty Loans Parade was intended to promote the sale of government bonds to pay for World War One. 8 Please see Hatchett RJ, Mecher CE, Lipsitch M (2007) "Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic,"PNAS 104: 7582–7587. 9 Please see Bootsma M, Ferguson N, “The Effect Of Public Health Measures On The 1918 Influenza Pandemic In U.S. Cities,” PNAS (2007). 10Please see https://www.nber.org/cycles.html 11Please see https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-development/research-reports/pandemic_flu_report.pdf 12Please see https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/03/fight-the-pandemic-save-the-economy-lessons-from-the-1918-flu.html. 13Please see Correia, Sergio and Luck, Stephan and Verner, Emil, Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu (March 30, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3561560 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3561560. 14Please see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935- and Federal Reserve Board, 1914-1935. "November 1918," Federal Reserve Bulletin (November 1918). 15Please see https://newrepublic.com/article/157094/americas-newspapers-covered-pandemic. 16Please see https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_role_during_wwi.

Special Report

Highlights Fed/BoE NIRP: It is too soon for either the Fed or Bank of England to consider a move to a negative interest rate policy (NIRP), even with US and UK money markets flirting with pricing in that outcome. Lessons from “NIRP 1.0”: In the countries that did go to negative rates in 2014-16 (Japan, Switzerland, the euro area, Sweden and Denmark), there existed some combination of weak economies, near-0% inflation, anemic credit growth or unwanted currency appreciation. Negative rates were needed to help fight those trends by driving down longer-term bond yields. NIRP 2.0?: Among the major countries without negative rate policies in effect (the US, UK, Canada and Australia), there is no evidence that longer-term borrowing rates need to fall further to boost credit growth, even in the midst of deep recessions. However, additional strength of the stubbornly resilient US dollar could be the deflationary shock that eventually forces the Fed into NIRP. Feature Chart 1NIRP 2.0 Would Trigger A Surge Of Negative Yielding Bonds Within a 20-month window in 2014-16, the central banks of Japan, Sweden, the euro area, Switzerland and Denmark all cut policy interest rates to below 0% - where they remain to this day. Fast forward to 2020, in the midst of a global pandemic and deep worldwide recession that has already forced major developed market central banks to cut rates close to 0%, there is now increased speculation that the negative interest rate policy (NIRP) club might soon get a few new members. The Federal Reserve has been front and center in that group. Fed funds futures contracts had recently priced in slightly negative rates in 2021, despite Fed Chair Jerome Powell repeatedly saying that a sub-0% funds rate was not in the Fed’s plans. The Bank of England (BoE) has also seen markets inch toward pricing in negative rates, although BoE officials have been more open to the idea of negative rates as a viable policy choice. Even the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has suggested that negative rates may be needed there soon. An expansion of the list of countries that have moved to negative rates, beyond the “NIRP 1.0” group of 2014-16, has the potential to drive down global bond yields even further. Already, there is $11 trillion of negative yielding debt within the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate index, representing 20% of the total (Chart 1) If there is a shift to negative rates in the potential “NIRP 2.0” group of major developed economies with policy rates now near 0% – a list that includes the US, the UK, Canada and Australia – then the amount of negative yielding debt worldwide will soar to new highs. An expansion of the list of countries that have moved to negative rates, beyond the “NIRP 1.0” group of 2014-16, has the potential to drive down global bond yields even further. In this report, we take a look at the conditions that led the NIRP 1.0 countries to shift to negative rates in the middle of the last decade, to see if any similarities exist in non-NIRP countries today. We conclude that the conditions are not yet in place for a shift to sub-0% policy rates in the US, the UK, Canada or Australia – all countries where central banks still have other policy tools available to provide stimulus before resorting to negative rates. How Negative Interest Rates Can “Work” To Revive Growth Broadly speaking, central banks around the world have had difficulty meeting their inflation targets since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The main reason for this has been sub-par economic growth, much of which is structural due to aging demographics and weak productivity. Since central bankers must stick to their legislated inflation targeting mandates, they are forced to cut rates when economic growth and inflation are too low. If real economic growth remains weak for structural reasons, then central banks can enter into a cycle of continually cutting rates all the way to zero, or even below zero, in order to try and prevent low inflation from becoming entrenched into longer-term inflation expectations. If growth and inflation continue to languish even after policy rates have reached 0%, then other tools must be used to ease monetary conditions to try and stimulate economies. These typically involve driving down longer-term borrowing rates (bond yields) through dovish forward guidance on future monetary policy, bond purchases through quantitative easing (QE) and, if those don’t work, moving to negative policy interest rates. A nice summary indicator to identify this intertwined dynamic of real economic growth and inflation is to look at the trend growth rate of nominal GDP. Chart 2 shows the policy interest rates three-year annualized trend of nominal GDP growth for the NIRP 1.0 countries, dating back to before the 2008 crisis. Japan stands out as the weakest of the group, with trend nominal growth contracting during and after the 2009 recession, while struggling to reach even +2% since then. The euro area, Sweden and Switzerland all enjoyed +5% nominal growth prior to 2008, before a plunge to the 1-2% range during and after the recession. After that, the three countries had varying degrees of economic success. Between 2016 and 2019, Sweden saw trend nominal growth between 4-5%, while the euro area struggled to achieve even +3% nominal growth and Switzerland maintained a Japan-like pace. Chart 2Fewer Tools Left For NIRP 1.0 Countries To Boost Growth Chart 3NIRP 2.0 Candidates Can Still Expand QE First The European Central Bank (ECB), Swiss National Bank (SNB), the Bank of Japan (BoJ) and Sweden’s Riksbank all cut policy rates aggressively in 2008/09, helping spur a recovery in nominal growth. The central banks had to keep rates lower for longer because of structurally weak growth, leaving far less capacity to ease aggressively in response to the growth downturn a few years later. Eventually, the ECB, SNB, BoJ and Riksbank all went to negative rates between June 2014 and February 2016. The BoJ and SNB, facing persistent headwinds from strengthening currencies, also resorted to aggressive balance sheet expansion to provide additional monetary stimulus – trends that have continued to this day, with both central banks having balance sheets equal to around 120% of GDP. The experience of these four NIRP 1.0 countries showed that the move to negative rates was a process that began in the 2008 financial crisis. Central banks there were unable to raise rates much, if at all, after the recession, leaving little ammunition to fight the varying growth slowdowns suffered between 2012 and 2016. Eventually, rates had to be cut below 0% which, combined with QE, helped generate lower bond yields, weaker currencies and, eventually, a pickup in growth and inflation. Looking at the NIRP 2.0 candidate countries, nominal GDP growth has also struggled since the financial crisis, unable to stay much above 3-4% in the US, Canada and the UK. Only Australia has seen trend growth reach peaks closer to 5-6% (Chart 3). The Fed, BoE, Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and Bank of Canada (BoC) all also cut rates aggressively in 2008/09, with the Fed and BoE doing QE buying of domestic bonds. Rates were left at low levels after the crisis in the US and UK, with only the RBA and, to a lesser extent, the BoC hiking rates after the recession ended. When growth slowed again in these countries during the 2014-16 period, the RBA and BoC did lower policy rates, but negative rates were avoided by all four central banks. Today, nominal growth rates have collapsed because of the COVID-19 lockdowns that have shuttered much of the world economy. Central banks that have had any remaining capacity to cut policy rates back to 0% have done so, yet this recession has already become so deep that additional declines in rates may be necessary to stabilize unemployment and inflation. The experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries shows that negative rates can also be effective in boosting growth – especially in countries suffering unwanted currency strength. One way to see the problem that monetary policymakers are now facing is by looking at Taylor Rule estimates of appropriate interest rate levels (Charts 4 and 5). Given the rapid surge in global unemployment rates to levels that, in some cases, have not been seen since the Great Depression (Chart 6), alongside decelerating inflation, Taylor Rule implied policy rates are now deeply negative in the US (-5.6%), Canada (-2.9%) and euro area (-1.7%).1 Taylor Rules show that moderately negative rates are also needed in Sweden (-0.5%), Switzerland (-0.2%) and Japan (-0.2%). Only in Australia (+1.3%) and the UK (+0.3%) is the Taylor Rule indicating that negative rates are not currently required. Chart 4Taylor Rule Says More Rate Cuts Needed Here … Chart 5… But Rates Are Appropriate Here Chart 6The Main Reason Why Taylor Rule Implied Policy Rates Have Plunged Among the potential NIRP 2.0 candidates, the negative rate option has been avoided and aggressive QE balance sheet expansion has been pursued by all of them – including the BoC and RBA who avoided asset purchase programs in 2008/09. Balance sheet expansion can be an adequate substitute for policy interest rate cuts by helping drive down longer-term bond yields and borrowing rates, which helps spur credit demand and, eventually, economic growth. Yet the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries shows that negative rates can also be effective in boosting growth – especially in countries suffering unwanted currency strength. How negative rates worked for the NIRP 1.0 countries For the ECB (Chart 7), BoJ (Chart 8), Riksbank (Chart 9) and SNB, the path from negative policy rates in 2014-16 to, eventually, faster economic growth and inflation followed a similar process: Chart 7The Euro Area's Negative Rates Experience Chart 8Japan's Negative Rates Experience Chart 9Sweden's Negative Rates Experience Moving to negative policy rates resulted in a sharp decline in nominal government bond yields The fall in yields helped trigger currency depreciation Nominal yields fell faster than inflation expectations, allowing real bond yields to turn negative Credit growth eventually began to pick up in response to the decline in real borrowing costs Inflation bottomed out and started to move higher. In Japan, the euro area and Sweden, this process played out fairly rapidly with credit growth and inflation bottoming within 6-12 months of the move to negative rates. Only in Switzerland (Chart 10), where the SNB gave up on currency intervention in January 2015, was the process delayed, as the surge in the currency triggered a move into deeper deflation and higher real bond yields. It took a little more than a year for the deflationary impact of the franc’s surge to fade, allowing real bond yields to decline and credit growth and inflation to bottom out and recover. The implication is clear – negative rates are good for real assets, but troublesome for banks.  Of course, we are talking about the pure economic effect of negative rates as a monetary policy tool. There are side effects of having negative nominal interest rates and deeply negative real bond yields, like surging asset values (especially for real assets like housing). Bank profitability is also negatively impacted by the sharp fall in longer-term bond yields that hurts net interest margins, even with higher lending volumes and reduced non-performing loans. Chart 10Switzerland's Negative Rates Experience Chart 11Negative Rates Are Good For Real Assets This can be seen in Charts 11 & 12, which compare the performance of real house prices and bank equities (relative to the domestic equity market) in the years leading up to, and following, the move to negative rates in 2014-16 for the NIRP 1.0 countries. The implication is clear – negative rates are good for real assets, but troublesome for banks. Chart 12Negative Rates Are Bad For Bank Stocks Nonetheless, the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries suggests that the potential NIRP 2.0 countries could see similar benefits on growth and inflation – but not before other policy options are exhausted first. Bottom Line: In the countries that did go to negative rates in 2014-16 (Japan, Switzerland, the euro area, Sweden and Denmark), there existed some combination of weak economies, near-0% inflation, anemic credit growth or unwanted currency appreciation. Negative rates were needed to help fight those trends by driving down longer-term bond yields and helping spur credit growth and, eventually, some inflation. Depreciating currencies had a big role to play in generating those outcomes. Negative Rates Are Not Necessary (Yet) In The NIRP 2.0 Countries As discussed earlier, the sharp surge in unemployment because of the COVID-19 global recession means that negative interest rates may now be “appropriate” in the US and Canada, based on Taylor Rules. Negative rates are not needed in the UK and Australia, however, although policy rates need to stay very low in both countries. A similar divergence can be seen in inflation. Headline CPI inflation rates were already under severe downward pressure from the recent collapse in oil prices. The surge in spare economic capacity opened up by the current recession can only exacerbate the disinflation trend. However, the drop in inflation has been more acute in the US and Canada relative to the UK and Australia, suggesting a greater need for the Fed and BoC to be even more stimulative than the BoE or RBA (Chart 13). A renewed breakout of the currency to new cyclical highs could be the deflationary signal that triggers the Fed into an even more aggressive policy response. There is one area where the Fed stands alone in this group. The relentless strength of the US dollar, even as the Fed’s rate cuts have taken much of the attractive carry out of the greenback, hurts US export competitiveness in a demand-deficient recessionary global economy. The strong dollar also acts as a dampening influence on US inflation. A renewed breakout of the currency to new cyclical highs could be the deflationary signal that triggers the Fed into an even more aggressive policy response (Chart 14). This would mirror the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries prior to the move to negative rates, where unwanted currency strength crippled both economic growth and inflation. Chart 13The Threat Of Deflation Could Trigger NIRP Chart 14Could More USD Strength Drag The Fed Into NIRP? For now, the Fed has many other policy options open before negative rates would be seriously considered. The reach of its QE programs could be expanded even further, even including equity purchases. The existing bond QE could be combined with a specific yield target (i.e. yield curve control) for shorter-maturity US Treasuries, helping anchor US yields at low levels for longer. Summing it all up, we do not see the need for any of the NIRP 2.0 candidates to move to negative rates anytime soon. The need for such extreme policies is not yet necessary, though, both in the US and the other NIRP 2.0 candidate countries. Bank lending is expanding at a double-digit pace in the US, and still at a decent 5-7% pace in the UK, Canada and Australia, even in the midst of a sharp recession (Chart 15). This may only be due to the numerous loan guarantees provided by governments as part of fiscal stimulus responses, or it may be related to companies running down credit lines to maintain liquidity. The experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries, though, suggests that credit growth must be far weaker than this to require negative policy rates to push down longer-term borrowing costs. Chart 15These Already Look Very "NIRP-ish" Chart 16Too Soon For Global NIRP, Maintain Neutral Global Duration Exposure Summing it all up, we do not see the need for any of the NIRP 2.0 candidates to move to negative rates anytime soon. In terms of investment implications, we continue to recommend an overall neutral stance on global duration exposure, as we see little immediate impetus for yields to move lower because of reduced expectations of future interest rates or inflation (Chart 16). We will continue to watch currency levels and credit growth as a sign that policymakers may need to shift their tone in the coming months. Bottom Line: Among the major countries without negative rate policies in effect (the US, UK, Canada and Australia), there is no evidence that longer-term borrowing rates need to fall further to boost credit growth, even in the midst of deep recessions. However, additional strength of the stubbornly resilient US dollar could be the deflationary shock that eventually forces the Fed into NIRP.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Footnotes 1 Our specification of the Taylor Rule uses unemployment rates relative to full employment (NAIRU) levels as the measure of spare capacity in the economies. For the neutral real interest rate, we use the New York Fed’s estimate of r-star for the US, Canada, the euro area and the UK; while using the OECD’s estimate of potential GDP growth as the neutral real rate measure for countries where we have no r-star estimate (Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and Australia).

Special Report

Highlights COVID-19 & The Economy: Australia is now in its first recession in 30 years, thanks to lockdown measures to contain the spread of COVID-19. Yet the nation’s rates of infection and death from the virus are relatively low, which should allow for a faster reopening of the domestic economy. Policy Responses: The RBA has taken extraordinary measures to cushion the blow from the lockdowns, like cutting policy rates to near-0% and capping shorter maturity bond yields through quantitative easing. The Australian government has also been aggressive in providing fiscal stimulus. These measures give the economy a better chance of seeing a “v”-shaped recovery as the lockdown restrictions are eased. Fixed Income Strategy: Downgrade Australian government bonds to neutral within global fixed income portfolios: the RBA has little room to cut rates, inflation expectations are too low and the structural convergence to global yields is largely complete. Favor inflation-linked bonds and investment grade corporate debt over government debt, as both now offer better value. Feature Chart 1The Australian Bond Yield Convergence Story Is Over Australia has a well-deserved reputation as a wonderful place to live, regularly sitting near the top of annual “world’s most livable countries” lists. A big reason for that is the stability of the economy, which has famously not suffered a recession since 1991. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed that happy economic story, with Australia now in the midst of a deep recession. Yet even during this uncertain time, Australia is living up to its reputation as a livable country, with one of the lowest rates of COVID-19 infection among the major economies. This potentially sets up Australia as an economy that can recover from the pandemic – and the growth-crushing measures used to contain its spread - more quickly than harder-hit countries like the US and Italy. For global fixed income investors, Australia has also been a very pleasant place to spend some time. The local bond market has enjoyed a stellar bull run since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, with policy rates and yields converging to much lower global levels (Chart 1). We have steadfastly maintained a structural overweight recommendation on Australian government bonds since December 2017. Over that time, the benchmark yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Australia government bond index declined -168bps, delivering a total return of +17.6% (in local currency terms). That soundly outperformed the global government benchmark index by 5.7 percentage points (in USD-hedged terms). However, just like the nation’s recession-free streak, Australia’s status as a secular bond outperformer is coming to an end. Just like the nation’s recession-free streak, Australia’s status as a secular bond outperformer is coming to an end. In this Special Report, we take a closer look at the Australian economy and fixed income landscape after the shock of the global pandemic. Our main conclusion is that most of the juice has been squeezed out of the Australian government bond yield global convergence trade. There are, however, some interesting opportunities still available in other parts of the Australian fixed income universe, like corporates and inflation-linked bonds. Yes, Recessions Can Actually Happen In Australia Chart 2A V-Shaped Recovery Is Widely Expected During the record streak of recession-free growth in Australia, the annual growth of real GDP has never dipped below 1.1%. The fact that a recession was avoided in 2009, given the degree of the shock from the Global Financial Crisis, is a testament to the balance within the Australian economy; consumer spending is 55% of GDP, business investment is 12%, government spending is 24% and exports are 25%. This stands out in contrast to more imbalanced economies like the US (where consumer spending is 70% of GDP) and Germany (where exports are 47% of GDP). Yet the unique nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has forced shutdowns across the entire economy, has nullified that advantage for Australia. There is no part of the economy that can avoid a major slowdown to help prevent a full-blown recession in 2020. Yet while expectations have adjusted to this new short-term reality, there appears to be a broad consensus that this Australian recession will be a short-lived “V” rather than an extended “U”. That can be seen in the forecasts of the Bloomberg Consensus survey and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), both of which are calling for a year-over-year decline in real GDP growth of at least -7% in Q2/2020. That will represent the low point of the recession, with growth expected to steadily recover over the subsequent year, with annual real GDP growth reaching +7% by the second quarter of 2021 (Chart 2). The Westpac-Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index suffered the single greatest monthly decline in the 47-year history of the series in April. Yet there was only a modest decline in the longer-run expectations component of that survey, which remains above recent cyclical lows (bottom panel) This is a message consistent with the RBA and Bloomberg consensus forecasts, where economic resiliency is expected. One reason for that relative optimism among Australian consumers is that COVID-19 has not hit the country as hard as other nations. A recent survey of Australian consumers conducted by McKinsey in April showed that 65% of respondents named “the Australian economy” as their biggest COVID-19 related concern. At the same time, only 33% of those surveyed cited “not being able to make ends meet” as their main worry related to the virus (Chart 3). Other responses to the survey showed a similar divide, with greater concern shown for the state of the overall Australian nation compared to worries about one’s own economic or health outlook. Chart 3Australians Worrying More About The Nation Than Their Own Situation For an economy that has not seen a recession in over a generation, a relative lack of concern over one’s own financial health – even in a global pandemic that has paralyzed the world economy – may not be that surprising. Another reason for that relative optimism is that Australia has, so far, escaped relatively unscathed from the spread of COVID-19 compared to other nations. Australia has, so far, escaped relatively unscathed from the spread of COVID-19 compared to other nations. The number of new daily COVID-19 cases is now only 1 per million people, according to the Johns Hopkins University data on the virus. This is down from the peak of 20 per million people reached on March 28, and substantially below the numbers seen in countries more severely struck by the virus like the US and Italy (Chart 4). Australia has also seen a relatively low fatality rate from the virus, with only 1.4% of confirmed cases resulting in deaths (Chart 5). Chart 4The COVID-19 Wave Has Crested Down Under Chart 5Australia Has Weathered The Pandemic Much Better Than Others Given these low rates of infection and death, it is likely that Australia will be able to reopen its economy faster than other nations. The Australian government has already announced an easing of the COVID-19 lockdown measures, which will include the opening of restaurants (with limited seating) and schools (on a staggered schedule). There is even talk of creating a “trans-Tasman travel bubble” with neighboring New Zealand, which has similarly low rates of COVID-19 infection. Yet even when Australians can begin resuming a more “normal” life, the backdrop for consumer spending will be constrained by relatively low income growth and high consumer debt levels (Chart 6). Real consumer spending has struggled to grow faster than 2-3% over the past decade and, with household debt now up to a staggering 190% of disposable income, a faster pace of spending is unlikely even as the economy reopens. Chart 6Weak Consumer Fundamentals Chart 7Australian Businesses Are Retrenching Among the other parts of the Australian economy, the near-term outlook is gloomy, but there are potential areas where the damage to growth could be more limited. Capital Spending Business fixed investment has been flat in real terms over the past year. With corporate profit growth already slowing rapidly and likely to contract because of the recession, firms will look to cut back on capital spending to preserve cash, leading to a bigger drag on overall growth from investment (Chart 7). According to the latest National Australia Bank business survey conducted in March, confidence has collapsed to lower levels than seen during the Global Financial Crisis, while capital spending and employment expectations have also declined sharply – trends that had already started before the COVID-19 breakout. Chart 8No Rebound In Housing Housing The housing market has long been a source of both strength and vulnerability for the Australian economy. While the days of double-digit growth in house prices are in the past, thanks to greater restrictions on banks for mortgage lending and worsening affordability, Australian housing was showing signs of life before the COVID-19 outbreak. National house prices were up +2.8% on a year-over-year basis in Q4/2019, while building approvals were stabilizing (Chart 8). That nascent housing rebound was choked off by the virus, with the Westpac-Melbourne Institute “good time to buy a home” survey plunging 30 points in April to the lowest level since February 2008. While the RBA’s interest rate cuts over the past decade have helped lower borrowing costs in Australia, the gap between the RBA cash rate and variable mortgage rates has been steadily widening (bottom panel). This suggests a worsening transmission from monetary policy into the most interest-sensitive parts of the economy like housing. Australian banks have been more stringent on mortgage lending standards over the past couple of years, which likely explains some of the widening gap between the RBA cash rate and mortgage rates. However, Australian banks have also seen an increase in their funding costs over that same period, both for onshore measures like the Bank Bill Swap Rate and offshore indicators like cross-currency basis swaps (Chart 9). Those funding costs have plunged in recent weeks, in response to the RBA’s aggressive monetary policy easing measures to help mitigate the hit to growth from COVID-19. The US Federal Reserve’s decision to activate a $60 billion currency swap line with the RBA back in March also helped reduce offshore funding costs for Australian banks. It is possible that the easing of funding costs could make banks more willing to make consumer and mortgage loans in the coming months, at lower interest rates, as the lockdown restrictions ease. This could help improve the transmission from easy RBA monetary policy to economic activity. Exports Demand for Australian exports was already starting to soften in the first few months of 2020. The year-over-year growth in total exports fell to 9.7% in March from a peak of 18.7% in July 2019. Exports to China, Australia’s largest trade partner, have held up better than non-Chinese exports (Chart 10). This was largely due to increased Chinese demand for Australian iron ore earlier in the year. Chart 9Bank Funding Pressures Have Diminished Iron ore prices have been declining more recently, but remain surprisingly elevated given the sharp contraction in global economic activity since March. This may be a sign that China’s reawakening from its own COVID-19 lockdowns, combined with more monetary and fiscal stimulus measures from Chinese policymakers, is putting a floor under the demand for Australian exports to China. Chart 10Australian Exports Will Not Rebound Anytime Soon Summing it all up, a major near-term economic contraction in Australia is unavoidable, but a relatively quick rebound could happen as domestic quarantine measures are lifted – especially given the significant amount of monetary and fiscal stimulus put in place by the RBA and the Australian government. Bottom Line: Australia is now in its first recession in 30 years, thanks to lockdown measures to contain the spread of COVID-19. Yet the nation’s rates of infection and death from the virus are relatively low, which should allow for a faster reopening of the domestic economy. A Powerful Policy Response To The Recession Almost every government and central bank in the world has introduced fiscal stimulus or monetary easing measures in response to the COVID-19 economic downturn. Australia’s policymakers have been particularly aggressive, both on the monetary and (especially) fiscal side. Monetary Policy The RBA has announced a variety of measures since late March to ease financial conditions and provide more liquidity to the economy, including: cutting the cash rate by 50bps to 0.25% the introduction of quantitative easing for the first time, buying government bonds in enough quantity in secondary markets to keep the yield on 3-year Australian government debt around 0.25% introducing a Term Funding Facility for the banking system under which authorized deposit-taking institutions can get funding from the RBA for three years at a rate of 0.25%, with additional funding available to increase lending to small and medium-sized businesses an increase in the amount and maturity of daily reverse repurchase (repo) operations, to support liquidity in the financial system setting up the currency swap line with the US Fed, providing US dollar liquidity to market participants in Australia. The RBA’s decisions on cutting the cash rate the 0.25%, and capping 3-year bond yields at the same level, sent a strong message to the markets that monetary policy must be highly accommodative until the threat of COVID-19 has passed. Fixed income markets have taken notice, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year Australian government bond falling from 1.30% just before the RBA announced the easing measures on March 19th to a low of 0.68% on April 1st. The yield has since rebounded to 0.95%, but this remains well below the level prevailing before the RBA eased. Those low interest rates have also helped to keep monetary conditions easy by dampening the attractiveness, and value, of the Australian dollar. The currency has historically been driven by three factors – interest rate differentials, commodity prices and global investor risk-aversion. With the RBA’s relentless rate cuts over the past decade, capped off by the measures introduced two months ago, the dominant factor on the currency has become interest rate differentials between Australia and other countries (Chart 11). The Aussie dollar has enjoyed a bounce as global equity markets have rebounded since the collapse in March, but remains well below levels implied by the RBA Commodity Price Index. The implication is that the upside in the currency will be capped by the RBA’s interest rate stance, which has taken all the formerly attractive carry out of the Aussie dollar. The RBA will need to maintain an accommodative stance for some time, as inflation – and inflation expectations – are likely to remain well below the central bank’s 2-3% target range. The RBA will need to maintain an accommodative stance for some time, as inflation – and inflation expectations – are likely to remain well below the central bank’s 2-3% target range. The new baseline forecast by the RBA calls for the Australian unemployment rate to double from 5.2% in Q1/2020 to 10% in Q2/2020, before drifting back down to 8.5% by Q2/2021 (Chart 12). The central bank sees the jobless rate returning to 6.5% in Q2/2022, but that will still not be enough to push headline or core CPI inflation back above 2% (middle panel). Chart 11Interest Rates Are The Main Driver Of The AUD Now Chart 12Inflation Is Dormant Down Under Inflation expectations have discounted a similar outcome. The Union Officials’ and Market Economists’ surveys of 2-year-ahead inflation expectations are both now under 2%. Market-based measures like the 2-year CPI swap rate are even more pessimistic, priced at a mere 0.12%! The recent plunge in oil prices is clearly playing a role in that extreme CPI swap pricing, but until there is some recover in market-based inflation expectations, the RBA will be unable to move away from its current emergency policy easing measures. Fiscal Policy The Australian government has been very aggressive in its economic support measures, including1: a so-called “JobKeeper Payment” to allow businesses to cover employee wages direct income support payments to individuals and households allowing temporary withdrawals from superannuation (retirement savings) plans direct financial support to businesses to “boost cash flow” temporary changes to bankruptcy laws to make it more difficult for creditors to demand payment increased financial incentives for new investment providing loan guarantees to small and medium-sized businesses temporarily easily regulatory standards (like capital ratios) for Australian banks, to free up more funds for lending The size of these combined measures is estimated to be 12.5% of GDP, according to calculations from the IMF (Chart 13). This puts Australia in the upper tier of G20 countries in terms of the size of the total government support measures, according to an analysis of fiscal policy responses to COVID-19 from our colleagues at BCA Research Global Investment Strategy.2 When looking at purely the fiscal policy response through tax changes and direct spending, and removing liquidity support and loan guarantees that may not be fully utilized, the Australian government’s stimulus response is 10.6% of GDP - the largest in the G20 (Chart 14). Chart 13Australian Policymakers Have Responded Aggressively To COVID-19 Chart 14Australia’s Planned Deficit Increase Is The Largest In The G20 Chart 15Australia Has The Fiscal Space To Be Aggressive The Australian government can deliver such a large response because it has the fiscal space to do it, with a debt/GDP ratio that was only 41.9% prior to the COVID-19 outbreak (Chart 15). This compares favorably to other countries that have delivered major stimulus packages but from a starting point of much higher levels of government debt. The Australian government can deliver such a large response because it has the fiscal space to do it. We do not see any downgrade risk for Australia’s sovereign AAA credit rating from the fiscal stimulus measures, despite the recent decision by S&P to put the nation on negative outlook. Australia will still have one of the lowest government debt/GDP ratios among the G20, even after adding in the expected increases in deficits for all the countries in 2020 (Chart 16). Chart 16Australia’s AAA Credit Rating Is Safe Net-net, the monetary and fiscal stimulus measures undertaken by Australian policymakers appear large enough to offset the immediate hit to the economy from the COVID-19 recession. This has important investment implications for Australian bond markets. The monetary and fiscal stimulus measures undertaken by Australian policymakers appear large enough to offset the immediate hit to the economy from the COVID-19 recession. Bottom Line: The RBA has taken extraordinary measures to cushion the blow from the lockdowns, like cutting policy rates to near-0% and capping shorter maturity bond yields through quantitative easing. The Australian government has also been aggressive in providing fiscal stimulus. These measures give the economy a better chance of seeing a “v”-shaped recovery as the lockdown restrictions are eased. Investment Conclusions We started this report by discussing the consistent outperformance of Australian government bonds versus other developed market debt over the past decade. After going through a careful analysis of the economy, inflation, monetary policy and fiscal policy, we now view the period of Australian bond outperformance as essentially complete. This leads us to make the following investment conclusions on a strategic (6-12 months) investment horizon. Duration: We recommend only a neutral duration stance for dedicated Australian fixed income portfolios; the RBA has little room to cut policy rates further; inflation expectations are too low; the nation is poised to rapidly emerge from COVID-19 lockdowns; and fiscal stimulus will be more than enough to offset the hit to domestic incomes from the recession. Country Allocation: Within global bond portfolios, we recommend downgrading Australia to neutral from overweight. The multi-year interest rate convergence story is largely complete, both in terms of central bank policy rates and longer-term bond yields. Our most reliable indicator for the future relative performance of Australian government bonds versus the global benchmark – the ratio of the OECD’s leading economic indicator for Australia to the overall OECD leading indicator – is increasing because of a greater decline in the non-Australian measure (Chart 17, second panel). This fits with the idea of the relative economic growth story turning into a headwind for Australian bonds after being a tailwind for the past few years. Within global bond portfolios, we recommend downgrading Australia to neutral from overweight.  Yield Curve: We recommend positioning for a steeper Australian government bond yield curve. The RBA is anchoring the short-end of the curve as part of its quantitative easing program, leaving the slope of the curve to be driven more by longer-term inflation expectations that are too depressed (third panel). Inflation-linked Bonds: We recommend overweighting Australian inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. As we discussed in a recent report, breakevens on Australian inflation-linked bonds are far too low on our fair value models, which include the sharp decline in global oil prices (fourth panel).3 Chart 17Move To Neutral Duration Exposure In Australia, While Favoring Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 18Australian Corporate Bonds Look More Attractive Now   Corporate Credit: We recommend going overweight Australian investment grade corporate debt versus government bonds. The recent spread widening has restored some value - especially when compared to the more modest increase seen in credit default spreads - while Australian equity market volatility, which correlates with spreads, has peaked (Chart 18). Also, the RBA has just announced that they will now accept investment grade corporates as collateral for its domestic repo market operations, which should increase the demand for corporates on the margin.4   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The full details of the Australian government economic response to COVID-19 can be found here: https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/Overview-Economic_Response_to_the_Coronavirus_2.pdf 2 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough?”, dated April 30, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low", dated April 28, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4https://www.rba.gov.au/mkt-operations/announcements/broadening-eligibility-of-corporate-debt-securities.html Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

The Fed’s unorthodox monetary policy will likely continue to underpin equity prices in the coming 9-12 months. Specifically, according to Leo Krippner’s shadow short rates (SSR) estimate, the shadow fed funds rate is now negative, which is tailwind for the SPX (SSR shown inverted, top panel). Falling interest rates are a boon to equities via a rising price-to-earnings multiple (SSR shown inverted, bottom panel). Also, while the Fed would never admit to it, it is trying to devalue the US dollar and reflate the global economy, which will indirectly boost S&P 500 revenues. As a reminder, 40% of SPX sales are internationally sourced and thus a falling greenback is a welcoming sign for S&P 500 turnover (middle panel). Bottom Line: We remain constructive on the prospects of the broad equity market on a cyclical time horizon. Please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report for more details.

Highlights Treasuries: Despite surging issuance, long-dated Treasury yields will move only slightly higher this year, driven by a modest recovery in global demand. There is also a risk that a second wave of COVID infections will send yields to new lows. We recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark while hedging the risk of higher yields by entering duration-neutral curve steepeners. Negative Rates: The Fed will not cut rates into negative territory any time soon. Investors who are able to do so should go short fed funds futures contracts that are priced for negative rates. EM Sovereigns: US bond investors should avoid USD-denominated EM sovereign debt and focus instead on US corporate credit rated Ba and higher. Of the EM countries with large USD bond markets, Mexican debt looks most attractive on a risk/reward basis. Don’t Expect A Taper Tantrum The big announcement in bond markets last week was the Treasury department detailing its plans for note and bond issuance in the second and third quarters. Of course, with the CARES act injecting $2.8 trillion into the economy, investors were already prepared for a big step up in issuance.1 But the numbers are striking nonetheless, particularly at the long-end of the curve. Overall note and bond issuance will reach $910 billion in Q3, roughly equal to the 2010 peak as a percent of GDP (Chart 1). Issuance beyond the 10-year point of the curve (i.e. the 30-year bond and new 20-year bond) will far exceed its financial crisis highpoint (bottom panel). Many bond investors are understandably worried that surging issuance will put significant upward pressure on yields in the coming months. Long-maturity Treasury yields jumped after the Treasury’s announcement on Wednesday before reversing all of that bounce the following day. But despite the mild market reaction, many bond investors are understandably worried that surging issuance will put significant upward pressure on yields in the coming months, especially with the Fed paring its pace of Treasury purchases (Chart 2). Chart 1Gross Treasury Issuance Chart 2Fed Buying Fewer Treasuries Our base case outlook is that Treasury yields will be marginally higher by the end of the year, and the yield curve will be steeper.2 However, we do not foresee a Taper Tantrum-style bond market rout. Treasury supply will continue to expand in the months ahead. But on the flipside, the Fed’s forward rate guidance will remain very dovish. If investors believe that short-dated interest rates will stay pinned near zero for a long time, fear of significant losses will remain low and Treasury demand will keep pace with supply, even at the long-end of the curve. Chart 3No Taper Tantrum In 2020 Yes, the Fed has scaled back its pace of Treasury purchases during the past few weeks, removing a significant source of demand from the market. However, it has also given no indication that it intends to lighten up on monetary stimulus broadly speaking. Based on the Fed’s dovish posture, we can be sure that if surging issuance leads to undesirably high term premiums at the long-end of the Treasury curve, the Fed will quickly ramp purchases back up to squash them. In general, our view is that all dramatic bond sell-offs are caused by the market suddenly pricing in a much more hawkish Fed reaction function. This can be driven by surprisingly strong economic growth and inflation, or by investors collectively changing their assessments of how the Fed will react. In this regard, the 2013 Taper Tantrum is an interesting case study. The Treasury curve bear-steepened dramatically in 2013 after Fed Chair Ben Bernanke laid out the Fed’s plan for winding down asset purchases. But this is not a simple story of bond yields rising because the market reacted to less demand in the form of Fed purchases. Rather, yields rose so much because Bernanke signaled to investors that the overall stance of monetary policy was much less accommodative than they had previously thought. Notice that gold fell sharply during this period (Chart 3), not because of less direct demand for Treasuries but because a more hawkish Fed meant less long-run inflation risk. The dynamic is illustrated very clearly by the CRB Raw Industrials / Gold ratio (Chart 3, bottom panel). The ratio is highly correlated with long-dated Treasury yields, meaning that for yields to shoot higher we need to see either a surge in global demand (i.e. CRB commodity prices) or a hawkish shift in the Fed’s reaction function (i.e. a drop in the gold price). If, as we expect, global demand improves only modestly this year and the Fed remains steadfastly dovish, upside in both the CRB/Gold ratio and long-maturity Treasury yields will be limited. Bottom Line: Despite surging issuance, long-dated Treasury yields will move only slightly higher this year, driven by a modest recovery in global demand. There is also a risk that a second wave of COVID infections will send yields to new lows. We recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark while hedging the risk of higher yields by entering duration-neutral curve steepeners. Don’t Bet On Negative Rates Table 1Fed Funds Futures The massive amount of new issuance was not the only exciting development in fixed income markets last week. Short-dated yields also started to price-in the possibility of negative interest rates in the US! Table 1 shows the price of different fed funds futures contracts (as of Monday morning) and what funds rate those prices imply for each contract’s maturity month. We also show the return you would earn by taking an unlevered short position in each contract and holding to maturity, assuming that the actual fed funds rate remains unchanged. We assume that the fed funds rate will stay at its current level (0.05%) because the Fed has made it very clear that a negative policy rate is not an option that will be considered. As evidence, we present some excerpts from recent Fed communications. Fed Chair Jerome Powell from his March 15 press conference:3 So, as I’ve noted on several occasions, really, the Committee – as you know, we did a year-plus-long study of our tools and strategies and communications. And we, really, at the end of that, and also when we started out, we view forward guidance and asset purchases – asset purchases and also different variations and combinations of those tools as the basic elements of our toolkit once the federal funds rate reaches the effective lower bound – so, really, forward guidance, asset purchases, and combinations of those. You know, we looked at negative policy rates during the Global Financial Crisis, we monitored their use in other jurisdictions, we continue to do so, but we do not see negative policy rates as likely to be an appropriate policy response here in the United States. The Fed staff’s assessment of negative interest rates from the October 2019 FOMC minutes:4 The briefing also discussed negative interest rates, a policy option implemented by several foreign central banks. The staff noted that although the evidence so far suggested that this tool had provided accommodation in jurisdictions where it had been employed, there were also indications of possible adverse side effects. Moreover, differences between the US financial system and the financial systems of those jurisdictions suggested that the foreign experience may not provide a useful guide in assessing whether negative interest rates would be effective in the United States. FOMC participants’ assessment of negative interest rates from the October 2019 minutes:5 All participants judged that negative interest rates currently did not appear to be an attractive monetary policy tool in the United States. Participants commented that there was limited scope to bring the policy rate into negative territory, that the evidence on the beneficial effects of negative interest rates abroad was mixed, and that it was unclear what effects negative interest rates might have on the willingness of financial intermediaries to lend and on the spending plans of households and businesses. Participants noted that negative interest rates would entail risks of introducing significant complexity or distortions to the financial system. In particular, some participants cautioned that the financial system in the United States is considerably different from those in countries that implemented negative interest rate policies, and that negative rates could have more significant adverse effects on market functioning and financial stability here than abroad. Notwithstanding these considerations, participants did not rule out the possibility that circumstances could arise in which it might be appropriate to reassess the potential role of negative interest rates as a policy tool. It is always possible that the Fed’s view of negative interest rates will change in the future. However, this won’t happen any time soon. The Fed still has other zero-lower-bound policy options it can deploy before it gets desperate enough to re-consider negative rates. The Fed still has other zero-lower-bound policy options it can deploy before it gets desperate enough to re-consider negative rates. For example, one logical next step would be to bring back the Evans Rule. That is, specify economic targets (related to unemployment and inflation) that must be met before the Fed will consider lifting rates. If that sort of forward guidance is deemed insufficient, the Fed could adopt a plan recently advocated by Governor Lael Brainard and start to cap short-maturity bond yields.6 If it wants more stimulus after that it could gradually move further out the curve, capping bond yields for longer and longer maturities. According to the FOMC minutes, this sort of Yield Curve Control policy had more support among participants at the October 2019 FOMC meeting than did negative interest rates:7 A few participants saw benefits to capping longer-term interest rates that more directly influence household and business spending. In addition, capping longer-maturity interest rates using balance sheet tools, if judged as credible by market participants, might require a smaller amount of asset purchases to provide a similar amount of accommodation as a quantity-based program purchasing longer-maturity securities. However, many participants raised concerns about capping long-term rates. Some of those participants noted that uncertainty regarding the neutral federal funds rate and regarding the effects of rate ceiling policies on future interest rates and inflation made it difficult to determine the appropriate level of the rate ceiling or when that ceiling should be removed; that maintaining a rate ceiling could result in an elevated level of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet or significant volatility in its size or maturity composition; or that managing longer-term interest rates might be seen as interacting with the federal debt management process. By contrast, a majority of participants saw greater benefits in using balance sheet tools to cap shorter-term interest rates and reinforce forward guidance about the near-term path of the policy rate. Bottom Line: The Fed will not cut rates into negative territory any time soon. Investors who are able to do so should go short fed funds futures contracts that are priced for negative rates. For example, a short position in the June 2021 fed funds futures contract will earn an unlevered 6.5 bps if the fed funds rate remains unchanged and the position is held to maturity. No Buying Opportunity Yet In EM Sovereigns When assessing the outlook for the US dollar denominated sovereign debt of emerging markets we consider two main factors: Valuation, relative to both US Treasuries and US corporate credit. The outlook for EM currencies versus the dollar. Ideally, we want to move into EM sovereign debt when spreads look attractive relative to the domestic investment alternatives and when EM currencies are on the cusp of rallying versus the dollar. Valuation At first blush, value looks like it has improved considerably for EM sovereigns. The average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays EM Sovereign index is 167 bps wider than it was at the beginning of the year and the spread differential with the duration-matched Ba-rated US corporate bond index is elevated compared to the recent past (Chart 4). However, widening has been driven by a select few distressed countries (e.g. Ecuador, Argentina and Lebanon). When we strip those out and look only at the investment grade EM sovereign index (Chart 4, panels 3 & 4), the average spread looks relatively tight compared to a duration-matched position in Baa-rated US corporate credit. Chart 4Only A Few EMs Look Cheap Because country-specific trends often exert undue influence on the overall index, we find it helpful to look at value on a country-by-country basis. Chart 5A shows the average option-adjusted spread for major countries included in the Bloomberg Barclays EM Sovereign index. This chart makes no adjustments for credit rating or duration, and as such we see the lower-rated nations (Turkey, South Africa, Brazil) offering the widest spreads. Chart 5B shows each country’s spread relative to a duration and credit rating matched position in US corporate credit. Viewed this way, the most attractive opportunities lie in Mexico, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Colombia, Qatar and South Africa. Chart 5AUSD-Denominated EM Sovereign Debt By Country: Spread Versus Treasuries Chart 5BUSD-Denominated EM Sovereign Debt By Country: Spread Versus US Credit Currency Outlook Chart 6EM Currencies Are Linked To Global Growth Currency is important for EM sovereign spreads because a stronger local currency literally makes US dollars cheaper for the EM nation to acquire. This, in turn, makes its USD-denominated debt easier to service, leading to tighter spreads. Chart 6 shows that EM Sovereign excess returns versus US Treasuries closely track EM currency performance. We also observe a strong link between EM currencies and high-frequency global growth indicators like the CRB Raw Industrials commodity price index (Chart 6, bottom panel). Based on this, we would only expect EM currencies to strengthen when global demand starts to pick up. Further, as our Emerging Market strategists wrote in a recent report, EM central banks are behaving differently during this recession than they have in past downturns.8 In the past, EMs would often run relatively tight monetary policies in order to fend off currency depreciation in the hopes of preventing capital outflows. This time, EM central banks are cutting rates aggressively, allowing their currencies to depreciate but supporting domestic demand. This is bearish for EM currencies and sovereign spreads in the near-term, but will probably lead to stronger economic recovery down the road. At the country level, we assess how vulnerable each country’s currency is to further depreciation by looking at its ratio of exports to foreign debt obligations.9 This ratio is a measure of US dollars coming in over a 12-month period relative to 12-month US dollar debt obligations. It has a relatively tight correlation with the dollar-denominated sovereign spread (Chart 7A). Low-rated countries, like Turkey and South Africa, have relatively low export coverage of foreign debt obligations, while Russia and South Korea have relatively strong debt coverage. Combining Valuation & Currency Outlook Chart 7B shows the same measure of currency vulnerability on the horizontal axis, but shows EM spreads relative to duration and credit rating matched US corporate credit on the vertical axis. Here, we see that Russia offers poor valuation, but a relatively safe currency. Meanwhile, Colombia offers an attractive spread but has a poor currency outlook. In this chart, Mexico stands out as the most attractive on a risk/reward basis. Chart 7AEM Sovereign Spread Versus Currency Vulnerability Chart 7BEM Sovereign Spread Over US Credit Versus Currency Vulnerability You will notice that the three Middle Eastern countries that stood out as having attractive spreads in Chart 5B are not shown in Charts 7A and 7B. This is because some data are unavailable, and also because those countries operate with currency pegs. Despite attractive spreads in those countries, we would not advise long-run positions in the USD-denominated sovereign debt of Saudi Arabia, Qatar or UAE. As our EM strategists wrote in a recent Special Report, if oil prices remain structurally low in the coming years (~$40 range), pressure will grow for Saudi Arabia to break its currency peg and allow some depreciation.10  The same holds true for Qatar and UAE. A bet on those countries’ sovereign spreads today amounts to a bet on higher oil prices. Despite attractive spreads, we would not advise long-run positions in the USD-denominated sovereign debt of Saudi Arabia, Qatar or UAE. Bottom Line: US bond investors should avoid USD-denominated EM sovereign debt and focus instead on US corporate credit rated Ba and higher. Of the EM countries with large USD bond markets, Mexican debt looks most attractive on a risk/reward basis. Appendix: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. Right now, that means we are overweight corporate bonds rated Ba and higher, Aaa-rated Agency and non-agency CMBS, Aaa-rated consumer ABS and municipal bonds. We are underweight residential mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds rated B and lower. The below Table tracks the performance of these different bond sectors since the Fed’s March 23 announcement. We will use this Table to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy's success. Table 2Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes  1 For more details on the size and potential efficacy of the CARES act please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough?”, dated April 30, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “The Policy-Driven Bond Market”, dated May 5, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20200315.pdf 4  https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20191030.pdf 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20191030.pdf 6 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20191126a.htm 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20191030.pdf 8 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM Domestic Bonds And Currencies”, dated April 23, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 9 For more information on this ratio please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains”, dated April 22, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Saudi Riyal Devaluation: Not Imminent But Necessary”, dated May 7, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification