Policy

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).