Estados Unidos

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.

Overweight In our April 14 Weekly Report we executed our upgrade alert and boosted the S&P internet retail index to overweight – a call that has since produced handsome relative gains of 14%. The most recent Advance Monthly Retail Trade (AMRT) report also suggests that the path of least resistance remains up for relative share prices. In fact, non-store retailers were the only category that reported an increase in activity on a month-on-month basis, while other categories such as clothing & accessories contracted nearly 80%. Bottom Line: We heed the message from the most recent AMRT report and continue to recommend an above benchmark allocation for the S&P internet retail index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5INRE - AMZN, BKNG, EBAY, EXPE.

Informe especial

Highlights China faces unprecedented socioeconomic challenges but its political response is rigid rather than flexible. The twin political goals of centralization and self-sufficiency bode ill for productivity. Communist Party elites have become more ideological and provincial, less cosmopolitan and technocratic. A global protectionist backlash adds to China’s woes. Over the long run, favor cyclical and commodity plays that benefit from China’s reflation but are distanced from its large and persistent political and geopolitical risks. Feature In ancient times Chinese emperors ruled with the “mandate of heaven.” As long as they could keep famine, rebellion, invasion, and plague from ravaging the nation, they were perceived as having divine sanction. Their dynasty would retain power and the people would be kept in awe (Table 1). Table 1Disease And The Fall Of Chinese Dynasties The COVID-19 pandemic and recession are highly unlikely to cause the downfall of General Secretary Xi Jinping and the Communist Party “dynasty.” But it is part of a string of recent challenges to the regime that are secular and structural in nature. The regime’s response, thus far, has been rigidity rather than flexibility – a warning sign that things may get worse before they get better. Investors should not view China as “fundamentally stable,” as has largely been the case for the past 20-30 years. Instead they should view it as fundamentally unstable and therefore a source of understated risk to the Chinese currency, equities, and corporate bonds. This is especially true relative to markets that benefit from Chinese reflation yet are distanced from its political and geopolitical risks. Political risks are more likely to manifest in China’s periphery in the short run. Mainland Chinese political risks are more likely to manifest over the long run. A Massive Reflationary Kick China convenes the National People’s Congress on May 21, after a two-month delay due to the extraordinary COVID-19 pandemic. The annual legislative session typically drives reflationary sentiment in the global economy and financial markets, especially in years of crisis such as 2009 and 2016. This year should be another such year, particularly viewed from a long-term perspective. Investors can count on massive Chinese stimulus because the spike in unemployment poses a threat to social stability. Chinese authorities are wheeling out the big guns for this crisis. The fiscal measures announced thus far should reach 10% of gross domestic product. The “quasi-fiscal” function of Chinese banks could push the total well above that when all is said and done. Investors can count on massive stimulus because the spike in unemployment poses a threat to social stability. The economy is contracting for the first time since the Cultural Revolution (Chart 1). Chart 1China's Rapid Growth, A Pillar Of Stability, Is Officially Gone Table 2The Great Chinese Boom, 1980-2020 Ever since that chaotic period, the Communist Party has based its legitimacy on economic growth and rising incomes. The results of China’s economic boom of 1980-2020 are well known. China’s share of global GDP has risen from 2% to 16%; its share of global capital stock from 3% to 21%; exports 1% to 13%; and military spending 1% to 14% (Table 2). In the future, with this economic pillar cracked, Beijing will have to devote even more attention to “stability maintenance” at home. Reflation Doesn’t Solve Structural Problems Household consumption is China’s only hope for developing sustainable economic growth in the wake of a boom driven by investment in export-manufacturing and construction. Cyclically, the virus threatens consumption by discouraging consumers from going anywhere other than work. However, China’s suppression of the virus is enabling consumers to resume activity gradually. Elsewhere, including Europe, economic expectations are also perking up, corroborating China’s data that consumers are increasingly willing to venture out of their homes (Chart 2). Still, China is vulnerable to subsequent outbreaks and is already instituting new lockdowns in the northeast. Structurally, China’s economy is susceptible to a series of historic shifts that were already taking place and that the pandemic has accelerated. The working-age share of the population is now declining rapidly. This coincides with a drop in the national savings rate (Chart 3) and a rapid rise in the dependency ratio – faster even than in Germany or Japan over the past two decades. Consumption will rise relative to investment. But if households are precautionary savers, as in Japan, then consumption will not grow fast enough to sustain overall GDP growth, forcing the government to spend more to shore up overall demand. Chart 2Chinese And Global Sentiment Recovering Chart 3China's Demographic Changes Portend Higher Cost Of Capital China no longer primarily channels its savings into export manufacturing. Instead it invests them at home. China’s total debt – public and private – has surpassed that of many developed nations despite the country’s lower level of development and wealth (Chart 4). China can manage this debt, given that it prints its own currency, keeps a closed capital account, and has shifted to a primarily domestic-oriented economy. But the debt is less manageable than before the crisis. Nominal growth has fallen beneath interest rates, implying that, in the midst of the crisis, debt cannot be serviced for the economy as a whole (Chart 5). Growth will revive, but it will likely run at lower rates than prior to the crisis. Debt servicing will be a recurrent problem for small or inefficient businesses. Chart 4China’s Indebtedness Will Continue To Surge Chart 5China Needs Growth To Service Debt Chart 6China Struggling To Avoid 'Twin Deficits' The whole problem is illustrated by China’s verging on “twin deficits” – an ever-widening budget deficit combined with a recent tendency to slip into current account deficit (Chart 6). Anglo-Saxon economies often run large twin deficits. But China is more comparable to Japan, which has never let itself run persistent current account deficits, since it would then become reliant on foreign sources of financing. Since China will run large budget deficits for the foreseeable future, it will either have to make its corporate sector more efficient (e.g. by depressing wages), or it will see downward pressure on the currency as a result of a weakening current account balance. The pandemic and recession will pass, thanks to massive stimulus. What will remain is China’s voyage into new territory. Prior to COVID-19 the concern was that China would grow old before it grows rich – that the transition to a low-growth consumer economy would occur at a much lower level of GDP per capita than it did with economies like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Now, with a sudden downward shift in growth rates, it is possible that China will grow old without growing rich. This would be a huge risk to the regime in the long run. The Communist Party Returns To Its Roots Risk of economic stagnation – the so-called middle-income trap – is why policymakers at the National People’s Congress this weekend will lay so much emphasis on “reform and opening up,” even as they are forced by the pandemic to do the opposite for now and stimulate the economy via debt-financed fixed investment. China has pledged sweeping structural reforms, liberalization, and internationalization so many times now that it is common for western policymakers to complain of “promise fatigue.” The lack of verification is one reason foreign governments are increasingly willing to consider punitive measures in dealing with China. Today’s macro and geopolitical context do not favor liberal reforms, such as occurred in China in the late 1990s, but the changing characteristics of China’s elite political leaders reveal a more specific reason why policy has grown more statist, more “communist,” and less liberal, over the past decade. Members of the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC), the most powerful decision-making body, have become more ideological, more authoritarian, less cosmopolitan, and less technocratic over the years (Chart 7). They are far less likely to have studied the hard sciences or engineering than their predecessors, who orchestrated China’s westernizing, capitalist reforms from the 1980s to early 2000s. Chart 7China’s Leadership Increasingly Provincial And Inward-Looking They lack experience running state-owned enterprises, which might seem like a plus, except that the alternative is being a career politician – a ruler of a province – and never having run any business at all. Leaders increasingly hail from rural provinces, as opposed to the wealthy, internationally savvy coasts. Chart 8China Will Miss Some Centennial Income Targets Essentially, the grassroots interior of the country – the base of the Communist Party – has been reclaiming the party from the corrupt, liberal, westernizing technocrats. And the party is about to grow even more reactionary. First, it is now officially failing to meet its own development goals. For several years the administration has talked of abandoning annual GDP growth targets as part of its push to prioritize quality rather than quantity of economic growth, but has not done so. Now it is not only the annual growth target that will be missed in 2020, but the party’s decade goals will have to be fudged (Chart 8). Moreover, if the economy does not recover as quickly as hoped then the highly symbolic 2021 centennial of the Communist Party will be marred. Replacing hard numerical targets is reasonable but will not change the party’s constant need to emphasize development goals to keep the people looking forward. And it will not remove the local-level incentive structures that cause economic distortions to meet central government goals. The takeaway is that massive stimulus is assured as the party cannot afford to suffer instability over this period of political milestones. Second, the administration’s difficulties open up at least some possibility of factional struggle within the party. Remember that Xi Jinping was supposed to step down in 2022 at the twentieth National Party Congress. This would have marked the end of his ten-year rule according to the rules that his two predecessors tried to establish. Xi altered this pattern in 2017 to pave the way to rule until 2035 or beyond. Thus while the market can look forward to stimulus this year and next to ensure the economy has stabilized by 2022 (Chart 9), there is potential for surprising political events to rattle China’s appearance of political stability and unity. Chart 9Xi Jinping Was Originally Slated To Step Down In 2022 Granted, Xi has shifted the party’s governance model from single-party rule to single-person rule. The most likely political shocks will come from Xi cracking down on his opponents to re-consolidate power, as he did in 2012-13 and 2017. Factional struggles could cause minor risk-off episodes in financial markets but they will say something more important, which is that the unity of the ruling party is a façade and stability cannot be assumed forever. Economic Targets: Centralization And Autarky In the coming years, Xi Jinping’s government will continue to centralize control over society and the economy as it has done throughout his term. This is the opposite of “reform” in the sense of former leader Deng Xiaoping, which meant decentralizing power and letting local governments and private business innovate. The Xi administration’s “reform” push was to cut industrial overcapacity and deleverage the corporate sector, as we highlighted in a series of reports from 2016-18. We argued then that these reforms would be abandoned as soon as major downside risks to growth returned – which is what occurred due to the trade war and now COVID-19. Thus the net effect of the Xi administration thus far has been to centralize the economy and pursue self-sufficiency. Centralization can be shown in the resurgence of the Communist Party, the central government in Beijing, and state-owned enterprises. Government debt has grown at the expense of private leverage (Chart 10), which faced a crackdown, while the state-owned share of corporate debt has grown from one-half to two-thirds since 2013. Xi formally pledged in 2017 to make state companies stronger, better, and bigger. His term has witnessed a major bull market in SOE equities relative to the broad market – and each phase of power consolidation adds a new rally to this trend (Chart 11). Chart 10Public Sector Encroaching On Private Sector … Before COVID-19 Chart 11SOE Bull Market Under Xi Jinping As for international trade, China has become far less reliant on foreign parts and components for its manufacturing sector over recent decades (Chart 12). It has also increasingly used state resources to pursue strategic self-sufficiency through technological acquisition, import substitution, and state-backed “indigenous innovation.” The attempt to make a new Great Leap Forward in advanced manufacturing and high-tech services has led to a direct clash with the US government, which is now actively expanding export controls. In the upcoming fourteenth Five Year Plan for the years 2021-25, Beijing is highly likely to double down on technological self-reliance. Chart 12China Closes Its Doors Chart 13Centralization And Closed Economy Harm Productivity Centralization and import substitution have harmed productivity, especially total factor productivity (Chart 13). Centralization is not necessarily bad for productivity – state-directed research and development can galvanize major improvements. But in China centralization is excessive and constricts the flow of information and ideas in civil society and academia, which discourages innovation and privileges quantity over quality of output. Closure to the outside world reinforces this point – particularly as a global protectionist backlash comes to affect China’s acquisition of tech and talent – and exacerbates the misallocation of capital at home. Social Unrest Will Grow China’s falling potential growth will generate social unrest over time, despite the appearance of perfect control in this authoritarian society. Table 3 shows our COVID-19 Social Unrest Index. Countries are ranked from best to worst, top to bottom. Obviously a high rank does not suggest a country is immune to unrest – all emerging markets are vulnerable. A poor score under “household grievances” – i.e., income inequality combined with the “misery index” of high inflation and unemployment – can engender unrest even in relatively well-governed states, as is happening in Chile. Table 3China Looks Stable On Paper: Our COVID-19 Social Unrest Index China ranks fourth overall, with poor governance indicators dragging down the total. However, household grievances will rise as the unemployment rate rises (and perhaps food and fuel inflation). Unemployment is much higher in China than officially reported. The government is also unfamiliar with how to deal with large surges in unemployment, having long utilized policy to minimize the unemployment rate at any cost (Chart 14). Chart 14AUnemployment Spike A Threat To Chinese Stability Chart 14BUnemployment Spike A Threat To Chinese Stability Chart 15Income Inequality In China Inequality is at extreme levels and will worsen as a result of COVID-19. Our China Investment Strategist shows that the bifurcation in wealth between the top 10% and the bottom 50% will widen as job losses hit low-skilled and labor-intensive sectors (Chart 15). The rural-urban disparity – an obsession of policymakers in recent years – will also grow amid the crisis (Chart 16). Two factors are aggravating these trends. First, the decline of the manufacturing sector alluded to above. China’s manufacturing sector was too large and it has been rapidly converging to the level of developed economies, meaning that as many as 10% of workers’ jobs are at risk in the coming years. A maturing economy and mercantilist geopolitical trends are accelerating this process (Chart 17). Beijing will have to confiscate wealth from the coastal provinces and power centers to reduce inequality and social grievances. Chart 16Regional Inequality In China Chart 17Large Manufacturing Sector Getting Purged Second, migrant workers are drifting home amid the COVID-19 crisis, just as in 2008. 51 million migrants vanished from employment rolls in the first quarter (Chart 18). The government’s model of household registration reform has focused not on making it easier for migrants to integrate into wealthy coastal provinces but rather on subsidizing activity in interior provinces and foisting workers back into their home provinces. This is a trigger of unrest. Will social unrest end up being politically significant? In most cases no. Beijing is prepared to quell protests and dissent – it has devoted massive resources to domestic security, even compared to its rapid military modernization (Chart 19). Chart 18Migrant Workers Cast Adrift Amid COVID-19 Chart 19‘Stability Maintenance’ Is A State Priority The Communist Party began prioritizing “social stability maintenance” across all dimensions of society in the wake of the global financial crisis in 2008. The abortive “Jasmine Revolution” in 2011, at the height of the Arab Spring, was literally swept away by street-cleaning trucks. The Wukan riots that same year were more persistent, flaring up again in 2016, but the siege was ultimately confined to a single city in the generally more restive south. Various shows of defiance in Wuhan and Hubei in the wake of COVID-19 have been snuffed out. Social unrest will not always be politically significant. State repression and mismanagement could turn any minor incident of unrest into a major incident. But as long as disturbances remain local, they will have limited political consequences. The risk for China is its pursuit of innovation and technological modernization. Greater connectivity will increase the potential for cross-border coordination. The running assumption is that China is an authoritarian state with sufficient police force to silence any discontent. But political activism does not have to be liberal – it could be nationalist, or simply based on quality of life issues that cannot easily be demonized. At any rate, the dislocation of the manufacturing sector and labor market in the context of a secular growth slowdown is a long-term tailwind for social and political challenges to the state. Political risk will grow, not fall, from here. Diversions From Domestic Unrest Beijing’s attempt to re-centralize power and reassert Communist Party control has sparked resistance in the Chinese periphery. Both Taiwan and Hong Kong have seen protest movements – consisting of middle class workers as well as youth – since 2013. These movements have not spread to the mainland – if anything they are a diversion from the mainland’s own problems. But they have prompted Beijing to crack down on the periphery, further polarizing opinion. While unrest in Hong Kong will heat up as Beijing attempts to impose even more direct control, ultimately Hong Kong has no alternative. Taiwan, on the other hand, is an island that already largely conceives of itself as an autonomous unit. The sense of Taiwanese identity – as opposed to Chinese – has exploded upward in recent years (Chart 20). There is a very high bar for war in the Taiwan Strait. And yet Chinese military hawks and strategists have begun to discuss it more openly. China’s military drills around the island are a measured but intimidating response to the rise of the popular, nominally pro-independence government since 2016. The US is making active but measured moves to shore up the diplomatic and military relationship with Taiwan. Given Washington’s renewed focus on China’s drive to achieve dominance in semiconductors, and America’s desire to secure supply chains that run through Taiwan and the mainland, we remain fully committed to our view that Taiwan is a major underrated geopolitical risk. Given the high bar for outright war on Taiwan, it should be no surprise that disputes over sovereignty and military positioning in the South China Sea should revive (Chart 21). This is a convenient outlet for Chinese nationalism. The sea is of vital strategic importance to all the major East Asian economies – not because of resources but because of supply security. Military actions in the sea have a direct bearing on cross-strait relations as well as Sino-Japanese relations, which are also liable to flare up during periods of economic distress. Chart 20Tensions In Chinese Periphery Set To Increase Chart 21South China Sea: Not Just A Distraction The US is pushing back in the seas as well, increasing the odds of a skirmish or incident. Recent reports that China will seek to establish an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea have been dismissed by Taiwanese authorities, but an ADIZ is just one of many plausible scenarios that could escalate tensions overnight. Will The US Sabotage China? The US election has the potential to exacerbate China’s economic and political insecurities in the near term. The major constraint on US-China economic decoupling is well known: US allies, such as Europe and Japan, can and will continue to trade with China. Thus the US would suffer the most if it insisted on an outright blockade of trade or tech. The implication, however, is that President Trump will change strategy in any second term. There is a substantial risk to European industry that he could attempt a trade war with the EU as well as China. But the major constraint – that the US cannot take on China alone – means that his advisers across all parties and agencies will urge him to change his position. Whether he will listen is anybody’s guess. Meanwhile a Democratic victory will ensure a multilateral strategy is adopted, as was the case from 2008-16. The real political risk comes when Xi Jinping attempts to step down and pass the baton to a successor. In this regard it is essential to recognize that China’s progress up the manufacturing value chain is a threat to US allies independently of the United States (Chart 22). Chart 22China’s Manufacturing Rivals Advanced Nations Judging by China’s fastest growing export categories, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore have nearly as much to lose as the United States if China’s state-backed trade practices are not constrained (Chart 23). These include illegal tech transfer, hacking, and increasingly Russian-style disinformation campaigns. Chart 23US Not Alone In Concern Over China’s Manufacturing Machine Chart 24China's Rise Comes At Expense Of US Allies, Not Necessarily US In terms of overall geopolitical power, China’s rise has occurred at the expense of Japan and the EU as well as the United States, even though Europe is less threatened militarily (Chart 24). The implication is that if the US should make a concerted diplomatic effort to form a united front against China demanding verifiable reform and opening, it will eventually be able to bring its allies over to the cause. Xi Jinping’s Succession Crisis How would China respond to this external pressure, which threatens to pile onto its new domestic woes? China will resist US unilateral pressure tactics, so confrontation with a re-elected Trump could be very destabilizing. A “grand alliance” of the West that leaves open the path to economic cooperation could force China to capitulate and offer real concessions. But we are far from there today. Faced with outright confrontation or multilateral encirclement, China will double down on self-sufficiency. Thus geopolitics reinforces China’s internal political evolution and the macro backdrop outlined above. Centralization, Maoism, protectionism, and confrontation with the United States suggest that China faces serious trouble over the long run, especially when today’s massive stimulus wears off. Chart 25Markets Want Chinese Reforms And A Trade Deal Will the challenges be so great as to deprive Xi Jinping of the mandate of heaven? Not anytime soon. He sits at the helm of a wealthy authoritarian state and has the distinct advantage of having consolidated power, from 2012-17, prior to the onslaught of internal and external pressure. He enjoys popular support, despite the seeds of unrest identified in this report. The real political risk for the Communist Party comes when Xi Jinping attempts to step down and pass the baton to a successor. It was the succession after Chairman Mao Zedong’s death that occasioned the power struggles of the late 1970s. And it was Deng Xiaoping’s various attempts to set up a successor that led to unrest and party divisions in the 1980s, culminating at Tiananmen Square. The implication is that systemic regime instability is a long way off – yet still discernible. Chinese equities trade at a high risk premium. However, it may persist for some time. Political and geopolitical trends are not positive for China’s growth, productivity, private sector, or trade over the long run. Equity returns in USD terms over the course of the just-finished bull market compare very unfavorably to the previous bull market (Chart 25). On a 12-month and beyond investment horizon, we recommend investors seek cyclical and commodity plays that benefit from Chinese reflation yet are removed from its governance and geopolitical risks. These include industrial metals, Southeast Asian assets, and Japanese and European equities.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Higher OPEC 2.0 production in 2H20 – likely beginning in 3Q20 – will be required to keep Brent prices below $50/bbl going into the US presidential elections, which arguably is the primary driver of prices in the 2020 post-COVID-19 recovery. Larger-than-expected OPEC 2.0 production cuts announced this month will force deeper inventory draws beginning in 3Q20. The re-opening of global economies and promising vaccine developments notwithstanding, we continue to expect an 8mm b/d hit to oil consumption this year, followed by an 8mm b/d recovery in demand next year. Brent prices likely will trade slightly higher than we forecast last month – $40/bbl this year, on average, vs. a $39/bbl forecast last month, and $68/bbl next year, $3/bbl above April’s forecast.  We expect WTI to trade $2 - $4/bbl below Brent (Chart of the Week). Two-way price risk is high: The likelihood demand will surprise to the upside cannot be ignored, but it could collapse with a second COVID-19 wave forcing lockdowns again.  On the supply side, the hurricane season is off to an early start in the US, with the first tropical storm, Arthur, named this week. Feature Chart of the WeekOil-Price Recovery In 2H20, 2021 Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Delivers Massive Production Cuts Political considerations – i.e., keeping crude oil prices below $50/bbl so as not to spike gasoline prices going into the US presidential elections – will drive the evolution of crude oil prices. The big driver of oil prices over the short term is what we know with the least uncertainty. Right now, that’s what's happening on the supply side over the next couple of months. Slightly further out – as November approaches, to be precise – the political economy of oil once again will dominate fundamentals. Political considerations – i.e., keeping crude oil prices below $50/bbl so as not to spike gasoline prices going into the US presidential elections – will drive the evolution of crude oil prices. That is why, we believe, the massive voluntary cuts announced by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and its Gulf allies earlier this month – amounting to ~ 1.2mm b/d of cuts in addition to those agreed by OPEC 2.0 in April – are so important: The global inventory overhang produced by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the short-lived market-share war launched by Russia in March, has to be unwound as quickly as possible, before the US presidential elections kick into high gear. Holding to the schedule agreed in April would drain inventories, but not fast enough by September to prevent further distress for OPEC 2.0 member states as the year winds down.1 By then, additional cuts would be highly problematic, given US President Donald Trump almost surely will be demanding higher OPEC production to keep gasoline prices down as voters go to the polls in November. KSA announced plans to reduce production by ~ 4.5mm b/d vs. its April level of 12mm b/d starting in June, taking its output to ~ 7.5mm b/d. This cut is 1mm b/d more than what it agreed to last month to balance the oil market. The UAE and Kuwait also voluntarily added cuts of 100k and 80k b/d, respectively, to their agreed quotas. Production cuts by OPEC 2.0 as a whole – led by KSA and Russia – begun in May and extending at least to the end of June will amount to ~ 9mm b/d, or close to 9% of global production (Chart 2). Chart 3US Shale-Oil Output Cuts... Outside of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts, we expect US shale-oil output to fall sharply – down ~ 2mm b/d this year from its peak in December, 2019 (Chart 3). The shale-oil supply destruction will lead total US production down by 600k b/d y/y in 2020 (Chart 4). US production losses will account for the largest share of non-OPEC production losses globally. Along with losses from Canada, Brazil and Norway in the wake of the COVID-19 demand destruction, we expect global oil production to fall 12mm b/d y/y by the end of June. Chart 4... Lead US Production Sharply Lower Demand Could Come Back Stronger For the year as a whole, we are leaving our expected demand loss at 8mm b/d, with most of that loss occurring in 1H20. That said, demand could revive sooner than expected, if the anecdotal reports of stronger-than-expected recovery in China prove out – the level of demand there is believed to be close to 13mm b/d in May, after falling to ~ 11.25mm b/d in February and March.2 Kayrros, the oil-inventory tracking service, noted its satellite imagery indicates, “Oil demand losses appear far lower than the prevailing view in April. Measured crude oil builds are wholly inconsistent with prevailing views of a collapse in oil demand of nearly Biblical proportions.” Furthermore, “By early May, there were clear signs of robust recovery in Asian crude demand as well as earlier-stage recovery in US end-user product demand. In addition, steep, swift supply cuts helped rebalance the market, leading to surprisingly deep inventory draws. But demand had never plunged as low as widely believed in the first place.”3 Our estimate of oil-demand destruction is less than that of the major data-reporting agencies. If this performance is repeated globally in EM economies – the historical growth engine of commodity demand – markets could tighten faster than we expect (Chart 5). Our estimate of oil-demand destruction is less than that of the major data-reporting agencies. In their May updates, EIA expects 2020 demand to fall 8.1mm b/d y/y in 2020, vs. 5.2mm b/d last month; OPEC sees demand falling 9.1mm b/d y/y, vs. 6.9mm b/d last month; and the IEA has it at 8.6mm b/d y/y, vs. 9.3mm b/d last month. Chart 5EM Demand Could Revive Quickly Chart 6Massive Fiscal and Monetary Stimulus Will Boost Aggregate Demand Globally By next year, we expect global demand will rise 8mm b/d y/y, driven by the massive monetary and fiscal stimulus that will continue to boost aggregate demand higher (Chart 6). In 2H20, we see demand recovering as flowing supplies fall (Chart 7), forcing onshore inventories to draw sharply in 2H20 and into 2021 (Chart 8), as well as floating storage (Chart 9). In addition, This will flatten the forward Brent and WTI curves in 2H20, and backwardate them next year, as storage draws continue (Chart 10). Chart 7Oil Supply Falls, Demand Rises ... Chart 8... Onshore Inventories Draw More Than Expected Chart 9Expect Floating Storage To Empty Rapidly Chart 10Falling Storage Levels Will Push Forward Curves Into Backwardation Political Economy Drives Price Evolution The risk of higher gasoline prices as crude marches higher this summer is a risk President Trump already has shown he will not countenance. Following the massive production cuts being implemented this month and next by OPEC 2.0 and the large involuntary output losses outside the coalition, there is a risk prices could rise rapidly in 2H20. The fairly high likelihood demand surprises to the upside in 2H20 cannot be ignored, which would further fuel a price spike. This is a combustible political mix. The risk of higher gasoline prices as crude marches higher this summer is a risk President Trump already has shown he will not countenance, particularly not as an election looms. With this in mind, we iterated on the production required to keep Brent prices below $50/bbl in 2020 in our modeling, consistent with our view of the political economy considerations US elections impose (Table 1). Any additional volumes needed to keep Brent below $50/bbl can be returned to market fairly quickly out of OPEC 2.0 spare capacity. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) OPEC 2.0’s production cuts have sharply increased the group’s spare capacity to ~ 6.5mm b/d – 5.5mm b/d in OPEC and close to 1mm b/d in Russia and its allies – which means these states will be capable of modulating production quickly and with fairly high precision. The Return Of OPEC 2.0 Production Discipline The budgets of the OPEC 2.0 states have endured massive hits, which can only be repaired by higher oil-export revenues, given their dependence oil sales. After the US elections, OPEC 2.0 production discipline will have to be revived, given the massive fiscal constraints these states are facing. The budgets of the OPEC 2.0 states have endured massive hits, which can only be repaired by higher oil-export revenues, given their dependence oil sales. KSA will want to manage the rate at which prices increase, so that prices rise while global markets are awash in fiscal and monetary stimulus. We believe Russia will acquiesce on this point – i.e., it will not reprise its role as a price dove arguing for lower prices against KSA’s desire for higher prices – given the damage done to its economy from the price collapse in 1H20. That said, taking inventories from historically high levels back down to their 2010-14 average levels – the storage target pursued by OPEC 2.0 prior to the COVID-19-induced price collapse – likely will keep price volatility elevated (Chart 11). An upside demand surprise while production is being aggressively curtailed could sharply raise prices. Indeed, in our modeling of 2021 prices, we again iterated on production to keep Brent prices below $80/bbl, which we believe is the level both KSA and Russia can agree on for the short term. We also believe that the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus sloshing through EM and DM economies will make such prices bearable, provided they are not the result of a supply-side shock. Chart 11Oil Price Volatility Will Remain Elevated The level of uncertainty in the oil markets remains extraordinarily high. Bottom Line: Our price forecasts are premised on a resumption in global growth in 2H20 that lifts crude oil demand, and sharper-than-expected voluntary and involuntary production cuts taking supply significantly lower over the balance of the year and into next year. As the volatility chart above shows, however, the level of uncertainty in the oil markets remains extraordinarily high: A demand surprise to the upside cannot be ignored, but it also could collapse again with a second COVID-19 wave forcing another round of lockdowns. On the supply side, Tropical Storm Arthur launched the hurricane season weeks ahead of schedule. This elevates supply risk in the US Gulf until the end of November, when the season ends. We expect 2020 Brent prices to average $40/bbl and 2021 prices to average $68/bbl. WTI will trade $2-$4/bbl lower. Two-way risk – upside and downside – abounds.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight OPEC's May Monthly Oil Market Report noted Iraq failed to raise crude oil output in April amid the market-share war instigated by Russia’s refusal to back additional production cuts at OPEC 2.0’s March meeting. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE managed to move their production up by 2.2mm b/d, 2.2mm b/d, and 330k, respectively. In our global oil balances, we assume Iraq will increase production along with core-OPEC 2.0 countries to balance oil markets once demand rebounds later this year. However, its declining production last month could signal Iraq’s ability to increase production is limited and that it will struggle to meet its increasing quota in 4Q20 and 2021. Base Metals: Neutral China’s policy-driven economic recovery continues. Last week’s data release provided evidence of a rebound in the manufacturing, infrastructure, and construction sectors (Chart 12). This will continue to support base metals – primarily copper and aluminum. Precious Metals: Neutral Chairman Powell’s comment that there is “no limit” to what the Fed can do with its emergency lending facilities supports our view that US real rates will remain depressed as inflation expectations move up ahead of nominal rates. Gold and silver are up 2% and 14% since last Tuesday. We believe silver slightly below its equilibrium price vs. gold and industrial metals (Chart 13). Silver could continue to temporarily outpace gold as it moves to equilibrium. Ags/Softs:  Underweight US corn planting for the 2020/2021 season is approaching the finish line, with 80% of the crop in the ground so far, as reported by the USDA on Monday. Although this figure was up 13 percentage points since last week, it didn’t meet analysts’ expectations of 82% to 84%, which provided support for corn prices. Furthermore, this week’s sharp rebound in oil prices also was positive for corn, which gained ¢2/bu since the beginning of the week. Chart 12Chinese Investment Tailwind for Base Metals Chart 13Silver Could Temporarily Outpace Gold   Footnotes 1    Please see US Storage Tightens, Pushing WTI Lower, our forecast published last month on April 16, 2020, which discussed the production cuts agreed by OPEC 2.0 in April.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2    Please see Oil highest since March as Chinese demand reaches 13 MMbpd published May 18, 2020, by worldoil.com. 3    Please see Reassessing the Oil Demand Impact of COVID-19 published by Kayrros on medium.com May 19, 2020.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

Underweight The S&P communications equipment index has given up its gains over the course of 2020. We remain bearish as the macro outlook still spells trouble and this positioning is in line with our newly formed view of preferring defensive tech (software & services) and avoiding aggressive tech (hardware & equipment). On the international front, “king dollar” has yet to fully filter through the system as foreign executives are reluctant to spend on big ticket items (CNY/USD shown advanced, top panel). On the domestic front, the industry has been aggressively ramping up headcount to the point that its wage bill is now expanding at the fastest pace this cycle. This rising labor cost backdrop will likely cap the share price ratio (wage bill shown inverted & advanced, middle panel) At the same time, CEOs are not ready to take the capex route as highlighted by the most recent CEO confidence survey (bottom panel). Importantly, the downtick in capex intentions came amidst a healthy rebound in almost every other “future conditions” sub-component of the survey. Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P communications equipment index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5COMM – CSCO, JNPR, MSI, ANET, FFIV.

Highlights German bunds and Swiss bonds are no longer haven assets. The haven assets are the Swiss franc, Japanese yen, and US T-bonds. Gold is less effective as a haven asset. During this year’s coronavirus crash, the gold price fell by -7 percent. As such, our haven asset of choice for a further demand shock would be the 30-year T-bond, whose price rose by 10 percent during the crash. Technology and healthcare are the two sectors most likely to contain haven equities. Fractal trade: long Polish zloty versus euro. German Bunds And Swiss Bonds Are No Longer Haven Assets Chart of the WeekGold Is Tracking The US 30-Year T-Bond Price... But The T-Bond Is The Better Haven Asset European investors have been left defenceless. German bunds and Swiss bonds used to be the safest of haven assets. You used to be able to bet your bottom dollar – or euro or Swiss franc for that matter – that the bond prices would rally during a demand shock. Not in 2020. When the global economy and stock markets collapsed from mid-February through mid-March, the DAX slumped by -39 percent. Yet the German 10-year bund price, rather than rallying, fell by -2 percent, while the Swiss 10-year bond price fell by -4 percent.1  The lower limit to bond yields is around -1 percent. The reason is that German and Swiss bond yields are close to the practical lower limit to yields, which we believe is around -1 percent (Chart I-2). This means that German and Swiss bond prices cannot rise much, though they can theoretically fall a lot. Chart I-2German And Swiss Bond Yields Are Near Their Practical Lower Bound The behaviour of German bunds and Swiss bonds during the current crisis contrasts with previous episodes of market stress when their yields were unconstrained by the -1 percent lower limit. During the heat of the euro debt crisis in 2011, the 10-year bund price rallied by 12 percent. Likewise, during the frenzy of the global financial crisis in 2008, the 10-year bund price rallied by 7 percent (Chart I-3 - Chart I-5). Chart I-3German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2008 Crash Chart I-4German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2011 Crash Chart I-5German And Swiss Bonds Did Not Protect Investors During The 2020 Crash The defencelessness of European investors can also be illustrated via a ‘balanced’ 25:75 portfolio containing the DAX and 10-year German bund. The balanced portfolio theory is that a large weighting to bonds should counterbalance a sharp sell-off in equities, thereby protecting the overall portfolio. The theory worked well… until now. In this year’s coronavirus crisis, the 25:75 DAX/bund portfolio suffered a loss of -13 percent. This is substantially worse than the loss of -2 percent during the euro debt crisis in 2011, and the loss of -7 percent during the global financial crisis in 2008 (Chart I-6 - Chart I-8). Chart I-6A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 7 Percent During The 2008 Crash Chart I-7A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 2 Percent During The 2011 Crash Chart I-8A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 13 Percent During The 2020 Crash What Are The Haven Assets? The lower limit to the policy interest rate – and therefore bond yields – is around -1 percent, because -1 percent counterbalances the storage costs of holding physical cash or other stores of value. If banks passed a deeply negative policy rate to their depositors, the depositors would flee into other stores of value. But if banks did not pass a deeply negative policy rate to their depositors, it would wipe out the banks’ net interest (profit) margin. Either way, a deeply negative policy rate would destroy the banking system. German and Swiss bond prices cannot rise much. German and Swiss bond yields are close to the -1 percent lower limit, meaning that the bond prices are close to their upper limit. Begging the question: what are the haven assets whose prices will rise and protect long-only investors when economic demand slumps? We can think of three. The Swiss franc. The Japanese yen (Chart I-9). US T-bonds. Chart I-9The Swiss Franc And Japanese Yen Are Haven Assets During the coronavirus crash, the 10-year T-bond price rallied by 4 percent while the 30-year T-bond price rallied by 10 percent (Chart I-10). Compared with German bund and Swiss bond yields, US T-bond yields were – and still are – further from the -1 percent lower limit. The good news is that long-dated T-bonds can still protect investors during a demand shock, although be warned that the extent of protection diminishes as yields get closer to the lower limit. Chart I-10Long-Dated US T-Bonds Are Haven Assets What about gold? As gold has a zero yield, it becomes relatively more attractive to own as the yield on other haven assets declines and turns negative. In fact, through the last three years, the gold price has been nothing more than a proxy for the US 30-year T-bond price (Chart of the Week). But gold is an inferior haven asset. During the coronavirus crash, the gold price fell by -7 percent, meaning it did not offer the protection that T-bonds offered. As such, our haven asset of choice for a further demand shock would not be gold. It would be the 30-year T-bond. What Are The Haven Equities? Many investors still use (root mean squared) volatility as a metric of investment risk. There’s a big problem with this. Volatility treats price upside the same as price downside. This is unrealistic. Nobody minds the price upside, they only care about the downside! Hence, a truer metric of risk is the potential for short-term losses versus gains. This truer measure of risk is known as negative asymmetry, or negative skew. In the twilight zone of ultra-low bond yields, bond prices take on this unattractive negative skew. As German bunds and Swiss bonds have taught us this year, bond prices can suffer losses, but they cannot offer gains. This means that bonds become riskier investments relative to other long-duration investments such as equities whose own negative skew remains relatively stable. The upshot is that the prospective return offered by equities must collapse. This is because both components of the equity return – the bond yield plus the equity risk premium – shrink simultaneously.  Equity valuations rise as an exponential function of inverted bond yields. Given that valuation is just the inverse of prospective return, the effect is that equity valuations rise as an exponential function of inverted bond yields. Chart I-11 illustrates this exponentiality by showing that technology equity multiples have tightly tracked the inverted bond yield plotted on a logarithmic scale. Chart I-11Technology Valuations Are Exponentially Sensitive To The (Inverted) Bond Yield Unfortunately, not all equities will benefit from this powerful dynamic. Equities must meet two crucial conditions to justify this exponential re-rating. One condition is that their sales and profits must be relatively resilient in the face of the current coronavirus induced demand shock. And they should not be at risk of a structural discontinuity, as is likely for say airlines, leisure and many other old-fashioned cyclicals. A second condition is that their cashflows must be weighted further into the future, so that their ‘net present values’ are much more geared to the decline in bond yields. Equities that meet these two conditions are likely to benefit the most from the ongoing era of ultra-low bond yields. And the two equity sectors that appear the biggest beneficiaries are technology and healthcare. In the coronavirus world, these two sectors will likely contain the haven equities. Stay structurally overweight technology and healthcare. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is to go long the Polish zloty versus the euro. The profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss are set at 2 percent. Most of the other open trades are flat, though long Australian 30-year bonds versus US 30-year T-bonds and Euro area personal products versus healthcare are comfortably in profit.  The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-12PLN/EUR When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 From February 19 through March 18, 2020. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

The US dollar is a key macro variable that we are closely monitoring and as we highlighted last week,1 the Fed is indirectly aiming at jawboning the greenback to reflate global growth and SPX sales, of which roughly 40% come from international markets.US dollar-based liquidity is one of the most important determinants/drivers of global growth. The longer US dollar liquidity gets replenished, the more upward pressure it will put on SPX momentum and SPX EPS (see chart). Sloshing US dollar-based liquidity will serve as a much needed catalyst for a global growth recovery. Bottom Line: We remain constructive on the prospects of the broad equity market on a cyclical 9-12 months time horizon. Please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report for more details. 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bottomless Punchbowl” dated May 11, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.  

Informe especial

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).