Estados Unidos

Highlights Global growth should bounce back in the third quarter, as mass COVID-19 testing allows more people to return to work. Temporary layoffs have accounted for the vast majority of the increase in unemployment so far. Ample fiscal and monetary support should prevent these layoffs from becoming permanent. The equity risk premium remains quite high, which warrants overweighting equities relative to bonds over a 12-month horizon. The near-term outlook for stocks is less flattering, given the strong rally in equities over the past two weeks and the fact that earnings estimates are likely to fall sharply once companies begin to report first quarter results. Accordingly, we recommend that investors take some chips off the table in preparation for a temporary stock market pullback. We are also shifting our near-term regional equity allocation and currency views in a somewhat more defensive direction. As Bad As It Gets? Chart 1Nosedive In High-Frequency Activity Indicators The global economy has plunged into a deep recession. The New York Fed’s weekly economic index, which tracks a variety of high-frequency activity indicators such as same-store retail sales, consumer sentiment, fuel sales, and unemployment insurance claims, has plunged below its 2008 lows (Chart 1). Service-sector purchasing manager indices have collapsed to the weakest levels on record (Chart 2). The OECD estimates that the shutdowns have reduced the level of output by between one-fifth and one-quarter in most advanced economies (Chart 3).1 If business closures were to last three months, this would shave between 4-to-6 percentage points from annual growth in the OECD in 2020.   Chart 2Service-Sector Activity Has Collapsed To Unprecedented Lows Chart 3Severe Economic Consequences Resulting From World War V At times like these, it is easy to despair about the future. Yet, there are three reasons to think that the worst of the economic damage will be over within the next few months: The measures necessary to control the virus are likely to be relaxed without this leading to a new wave of infections. Recessions following exogenous shocks, such the one we are currently experiencing, tend to produce faster recoveries than those stemming from endogenous slowdowns. Policy will remain highly supportive, mitigating possible adverse second-round effects. Quarantine Measures Are Likely To Be Relaxed In our recently published Q2 Strategy Outlook, we likened the current situation to one where a cyclist fails to apply the brakes when starting to descend a steep hill. Not only does the cyclist need to squeeze the brake levers to slow down, he needs to squeeze them harder than he would otherwise have in order to compensate for failing to squeeze them at the outset. Only once the bicycle has decelerated to a safe speed can he ease off the brakes a bit. Most countries find themselves in the position of the cyclist. Policymakers were too slow to react at the outset of the pandemic, and now have to compensate for their inaction by imposing draconian containment measures. In epidemiological language, policymakers are seeking to reduce the effective reproduction number – the average number of people a carrier of the virus will infect – from well above one to well below one. As long as the reproduction number stays below one, the number of new infections will keep falling. Once the number of new cases has declined to a level that no longer overwhelms hospitals, policymakers will be able to relax containment measures by just enough to bring the reproduction number back to one. This will create a new steady state where the number of new infections remains at a stable and manageable level.  The good news is that the strategy appears to be working. The number of new cases and deaths have started to decline in both Italy and Spain, the two hardest hit European countries. In the US, while the number of new cases has yet to show a clear downward trend, there are glimmers of hope (Chart 4). For example, the net number of people admitted to New York hospitals has declined sharply since the beginning of April (Chart 5). Chart 4New Cases And Deaths: Have We Turned The Corner? Chart 5Glimmer Of Hope Emanating From The Big Apple? Test, Test, Test While keeping the reproduction number from rising above one will still require a variety of containment measures, the economic burden of these measures will decline over time. Using the bicycle analogy above, this is equivalent to saying that the road will become flatter the further down we go. To some extent, we will be able to relax containment measures because the virus will find it more difficult to propagate as more people are infected. However, unless it turns out that the number of asymptomatic cases is currently much greater than most estimates suggest, the benefits from this effect are likely to be small. The bigger impact will come not from making headway towards herd immunity, but from scaling up existing testing technologies to figure out who is dangerous to others and who is not. Forcing almost everyone who is not deemed to be an “essential worker” to stay at home is hardly an optimal strategy. Rather than trying to isolate most people, it would be preferable to isolate only those who are infected. The problem is that we currently do not know who those people are. That will change as testing capacity ramps up. Right now, we are in the same predicament as if there had been a major terrorist attack using an explosive device that was invisible to conventional detectors. Just like there would have been a temptation to stop all air travel until we figured out how to detect the new type of bomb, we have decided to stop most commerce because we do not know who may be carrying the virus. The good news is that the technology to test people for COVID-19 exists. Abbott Labs has already unveiled a PCR test, which detects specific genetic material within the virus, that can render a positive result in as little as five minutes and a negative one in thirteen minutes. Last Wednesday, the FDA authorized a rapid antibody blood test for COVID-19 developed by Cellex, which can determine if someone previously had the virus and has recovered. Pessimists would highlight that there is currently a severe shortage of test kits. That is true, but we should avoid the trap of linear thinking that got us into this mess to begin with. Producing more tests is an engineering problem that will be solved. As the number of tests performed begins to increase exponentially, testing will become ubiquitous. How much would mass testing help? The answer is a lot. Paul Romer has shown that a strategy of randomly testing everyone roughly once every two weeks would bring down the total number of people who contract the virus to under 20% of the population.2 In his simulation, only 5%-to-10% of the population would need to be quarantined at any given time. In the absence of mass testing, 50% of the population would need to be quarantined to yield the same result (See Appendix 1 for details). The economy can handle isolating 5%-to-10% of its population at any given time. It cannot handle isolating half its population. Just like you have to X-ray your luggage at the airport, you may end up having to take a COVID-19 test before boarding a flight. Children will be tested at school several times a week; first responders more often than that. It will be a nuisance, but the alternative of a Great Depression is much worse. And if it is any consolation, at least this is one test you won’t have to study for! Unemployment Dynamics Following Exogenous Shocks Chart 6Historically, It Has Taken Some Time For Employment To Return To Pre-Recession Levels Economic life is full of asymmetries. It is easier to go bankrupt than to start a new business. It is also easier to lose a job than to find a new one. Once the links between companies and workers are severed, it can be difficult to restore them. This is partly because it is time-consuming and costly to match available workers with open positions. It is also because there are feedback loops at work: If someone is unemployed and not earning an income, they have less money to spend. If people are not spending much, there is less incentive for firms to hire new workers. In the United States, it took more than six years for the level of employment to return to its January 2008 peak. Even during the fairly mild 2001 downturn, employment did not return to pre-recession levels until February 2005 (Chart 6). Given the recent steep drop in output, it is likely that the unemployment rate will eclipse 10% in the US and most other economies during the coming months. Does this mean that it will take many years for the labor market to heal? Not necessarily. So far, most of the workers who have lost their jobs have been furloughed rather than permanently dismissed. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 86% of the roughly 1.2 million US workers who lost their jobs in March were laid off temporarily (Chart 7). As a share of all unemployed, the number of workers on temporary layoff doubled in March to the highest level on record (Chart 8). Chart 7US Job Losses: Furlough Or Permanent Dismissal? Chart 8US Temporary Job Losses Have Skyrocketed The Role Of Stimulus Of course, it is possible that temporary layoffs will turn into permanent ones. This is where governments need to step in. Nothing can be done about the near-term decline in economic activity. That is the price which needs to be paid to keep the virus under control. However, transfers of income from governments to struggling households and firms can alleviate a lot of needless hardship, while making sure there is enough pent-up demand around for when businesses reopen their doors. We have discussed at length the various monetary and fiscal measures that have been introduced to combat the crisis.3 We will not get into the nitty-gritty of that discussion now, other than to note that the sizes of the various rescue packages have generally been in the ballpark of what is needed. And if it turns out that more help is necessary, it will be forthcoming. Chart 9 shows that there is widespread bipartisan support for further stimulus among US voters of all ages and backgrounds. Chart 9US: Support For Further Stimulus Is Widespread The WWII Comparison In some economic respects, the pandemic may end up resembling World War II. Just like today, the volume of nonessential goods and services was greatly curtailed during the war in order to make room for essential production (Chart 10). Instead of an exponential increase in facemasks and test kits, there was an exponential increase in the production of military equipment (Chart 11). Chart 10WW2 Versus World War V Chart 11Now Let's Do The Same For Test Kits And Ventilators Similar to today, the US government ran massive budget deficits to finance the war effort. The ratio of federal debt-to-GDP rose from 45% in 1942 to more than 100% by the end of 1945. Today there is widespread fear that returning workers will find themselves out of a job. Back then, people worried that returning soldiers would be unable to secure work, leading to a second Great Depression. Future Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson warned that the US faced the “greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation” unless wartime controls were extended. Gunnar Myrdal, another future Nobel laureate, predicted an “epidemic of violence” stemming from mass unemployment. Looking back, while the unemployment rate did rise briefly after the war, it quickly fell back, as the pent-up demand from years of frugality and a slew of war-time inventions ushered in two decades of unprecedented growth. Policy also did its part. Even though government spending fell by 75% in real terms between 1944 and 1947, the GI Bill, which provided free education, low-cost mortgages, and unemployment benefits to returning soldiers, cushioned the blow. The Marshall Plan also helped rebuild post-war Europe, boosting US exports in the process. We are not predicting that the pandemic will usher in a period of unparalleled prosperity. Nevertheless, just like the bleak forecasts following WWII proved to be unfounded, today’s forecasts of prolonged mass unemployment will likely not materialize. Gauging The Fair Value Of Equities To what extent has the recession reduced the fair value of corporate equities? Let us try to answer this question analytically. Consider a baseline where earnings grow by 2% per year, the risk-free rate is 2%, and the equity risk premium is 5%. Now suppose that the recession temporarily reduces corporate profits by 60% this year, 40% next year, and 20% the year after next relative to the aforementioned baseline, with earnings returning to trend beyond then. Chart 12 shows that such a recessionary shock would reduce the present value of earnings by 5.4%. Now let’s consider a more ominous scenario where corporate profits fall by 60% this year, 40% next year, 20% the year after that, and then remain 10% lower relative to the baseline forever. In that case, the present value of future earnings would fall by 14.1%. One might notice that even in this ominous scenario, the present value of future earnings falls less than one might have assumed. And this is before we take into account any possible mitigating effects from a drop in the risk-free rate. For example, suppose that the risk-free rate declines by one percentage point, which is roughly how much both the US 30-year Treasury yield and our 5-year/5-year forward terminal rate proxy have fallen since the start of the year (Chart 13). In that case, the present value of earnings would increase by 7.3% even if profits followed the ominous path described above.   Chart 12What Happens To Earnings During A Recessionary Shock? Chart 13Long-Term Rates Have Dropped This Year Of course, in practice, stocks tend to fall a lot more during recessions than you would expect based on the sort of fair value calculations described above. This is because the equity risk premium, which we have kept constant in our examples, usually rises in periods of economic turmoil. A higher risk premium increases the discount rate applied to future earnings, leading to lower stock prices. The equity risk premium is mean reverting. This explains why the prospective return to equities is usually highest during recessions and lowest following long economic booms. The equity risk premium is quite high at present, which warrants overweighting equities relative to bonds over a 12-month horizon (Chart 14). That said, the high equity risk premium mainly reflects exceptionally low bond yields. In absolute terms, stocks are not especially cheap, particularly in the US, where the S&P 500 trades at 17.3-forward earnings (Chart 15). That is actually above the P/E ratio of 15.1 that the S&P 500 reached in October 2007 at the peak of the bull market before the start of the Global Financial Crisis. Chart 14The Equity Risk Premium Is Quite High, Especially Outside The US Chart 15US Stocks Are Not Particularly Cheap In Absolute Terms     Moreover, today’s forward P/E ratio is based on stale earnings estimates which will come down over the coming weeks. The bottom-up consensus calls for S&P 500 companies to earn $153 per share this year. Our US equity strategists expect something closer to $100. We noted earlier this month that we would be aggressive buyers of stocks if the S&P 500 fell below 2250, but would turn neutral if the S&P 500 rose above 2750. The index briefly fell below 2250 on March 23, only to surge to 2789 as of the close of trading today. As such, we are downgrading our tactical 3-month view on global equities back to neutral. We are also trimming our tactical 3-month recommendation on the more cyclical currencies and stock markets such as those in Europe and EM. For now, we are maintaining our overweight stance on global stocks over a 12-month horizon, but will consider curbing that too if the S&P 500 rises above 3000 without a corresponding improvement in the news flow. Our full slate of views is shown in the matrix at the end of this report. Going forward, we will use this matrix as the primary tool for communicating our market views, reserving trade recommendations only for special situations that are not well covered by the views expressed in the matrix. To enhance accountability, we will start tracking all the positions in the matrix versus an appropriate market benchmark.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com APPENDIX 1: Testing Versus Mass Quarantines (I) In a series of blog posts, Paul Romer presented a model that simulates and visualizes the effects of various policies aimed at containing the spread of Covid-19. At its core, similar to models used by epidemiologists, Romer’s model shows that without any intervention, a vast majority of populations will end up becoming infected. His simulations suggest that the policy of isolation based on random testing can be as effective in containing the virus as mass indiscriminate isolation. However, the economic and social costs of the latter are much higher than they are for the former. In Romer’s simulations, the policy of test-based isolation keeps the cumulative fraction of the population that is infected at below 20%. This policy relies on frequent testing where 7% of the population is randomly tested every day, equivalent to testing everyone roughly once every two weeks. Those who test positive are isolated. It is further assumed that these tests are imperfect: they yield 20% false negatives and 1% false positives. To achieve a similar profile of virus propagation without tests, Romer finds that a random isolation policy would require an average isolation rate in the population of about 50%. Appendix Chart 1 provides a graphical comparison of the intensity of the quarantining that is required under the two policy simulations. It shows that an isolation policy relying on tests results in much less disruption to normal patterns of social interactions.   Appendix Chart 1 APPENDIX 1: Testing Versus Mass Quarantines (II) The following two animations visualize the differences between the two policies: The blue inverted triangles show those who are vulnerable to catching the virus; the red circles signify those who are infectious; the purple squares mark those who were previously infectious but have now recovered and can neither catch nor transmit the virus; and the hollow orange box illustrates isolation. Isolating Based On Test Results .iframe-container{ position: relative; width 100%; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; } .iframe-container iframe{ position: absolute; top:0; left:0; width:100%; height: 100%; }   Isolating At Random .iframe-container{ position: relative; width 100%; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; } .iframe-container iframe{ position: absolute; top:0; left:0; width:100%; height: 100%; }   Source: Paul Romer, “Simulating Covid-19: Part 2,” March 24, 2020. For more details about the models and simulations as well as sensitivity analysis, please visit: https://paulromer.net/. Footnotes 1  “Evaluating The Initial Impact Of Covid-19 Containment Measures On Economic Activity,” OECD, 2020. 2 Paul Romer, “Simulating Covid-19: Part 2,” March 24, 2020. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy, “Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V,” dated March 27, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Dear clients, Owing to the observance of Easter holidays our regular publication schedule resumes with our Weekly Report on Tuesday, April 14th, 2020. Kind Regards, Anastasios Avgeriou While we have no real visibility on EPS, our sense is that we will not fall further than what has already been discounted in the broad equity market (please see the March 30, 2020 Weekly Report for more details). At the same time, analysts are scrambling to cut estimates the world over. Not only SPX net earnings revisions (NER) are at the lowest point since the GFC, but so is the emerging markets NER ratio. The Eurozone and Japan are following close behind and have recently plunged near the GFC lows (see chart). Once again the speed of this downward adjustment suggests that a lot of bad news is already priced in now depressed NER. Such pessimism in the sell-side community has historically flagged periods of climactic selling, and with NER being nearly on a par with GFC levels, it is likely that the market has already printed the lows for the current recession. Bottom Line: We continue to recommend investors with higher risk tolerance and a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon deploy capital in the broad equity market.    

The VIX hit 85.47 intraday on March 18th and clocked its highest close since the history of the data. Its sibling the VXO (volatility on the OEX or S&P 100) that predated the VIX hit an intraday high of 172.79 on Tuesday, following Black Monday, October 20, 1987, and suggests that if another crash takes root the VIX can hit triple digits.1  Importantly, vol at 44 translates into a 13% move in the SPX, in either direction, in the next 30 days. The chart below shows that actual SPX realized volatility remains well over a 100, trumping the VIX’s spike. Historically, when realized volatility leaves the VIX in the dust, it is time to sell the VIX; the opposite is also true. Given that we still do not expect a repeat of the GFC, or a depression, we recommend investors with higher risk tolerance continue to deploy long-term oriented capital in the broad equity market with a 9-12 month cyclical time horizon. Footnotes 1     http://www.cboe.com/products/vix-index-volatility/vix-options-and-futures/vix-index/vix-historical-data  

Highlights Bond Yield Differentials: The deepening global recession has prompted aggressive monetary easing measures by virtually every developed economy central bank. With policy rates now near zero everywhere, government bond yield differentials between countries have been reduced substantially. Currency Hedged vs Unhedged Yields: Opportunities still exist in some countries to create synthetically “higher” yields relative to low local rates by hedging the currency exposure of foreign bonds. Country Allocation: Italy and Spain government bonds offer the most attractive yields, hedged into any of the major currencies (USD, EUR, GBP, JPY). Among the lower yielders, Canadian, Australian, French and Japanese government bonds offer the most attractive yield pickups, on a currency-hedged basis, versus yields in the US, Germany, and the UK. Feature Chart 1A Synchronized Collapse The COVID-19 economic downturn is already shaping up to be one of the deepest global recessions in history. While there have been worldwide industrial slowdowns and manufacturing recessions in the past, what is happening now is different in that all countries are suffering sharp contractions in activity in the much larger services sectors that employ far more workers. The result will be massive increases in unemployment, as is already happening in the US where a staggering 10 million workers have filed for jobless benefits over just the past two weeks. Central bankers have responded to the shock to growth by following essentially the same playbook: cutting interest rates to zero as rapidly as possible, followed up with quantitative easing and other programs to support financial markets. With a synchronized economic collapse leading to policy convergence, government bond yields have plunged worldwide, but yield differentials between countries have also fallen sharply as a result (Chart of the Week). In this report, we will present the case for using currency hedging more actively than usual to create more attractive global bond yields. What can a global government bond investor do in this environment of tiny-but-highly-correlated bond yields to squeeze out some incremental additional return? In this report, we will present the case for using currency hedging more actively than usual to create more attractive global bond yields. A Fundamentally Driven Yield Convergence Chart 2Yields Are Low Everywhere As a simple starting point, just looking at the level of government bond yields in the developed economies is a good indication of how little there is to choose from between countries right now. For example, a 10-year government bond in the US was yielding 0.67% yesterday, compared to a 10-year yield in Australia, Canada and the UK of 0.82%, 0.75%, and 0.33% respectively (Chart 2). Not only are those low absolute yields, but those spreads versus US Treasuries are very narrow in an historical context. Another way to see how similar interest rate structures have become within the major developed markets is by looking at market expectations of future policy rates. Our proxy for the market’s pricing of the terminal nominal policy rate – the 5-year overnight index swap (OIS) rate, 5-years forward – shows that interest rate markets are expecting policy rates to stay very low over the next few years. The fall in the terminal rate estimate has been the largest in the US and Canada, where the markets were still pricing in a “peak” policy rate level around 2% as late as December – the figure is now 0.6% in the US and 1.1% in Canada (Chart 3). Chart 3Global Policy Rate Convergence So if the bond markets now believe that the current levels of bond yields will be sustained for longer, is that a realistic belief? There is already a considerable amount of both monetary and fiscal stimulus that has been introduced by policymakers. At some point, this stimulus should begin to stabilize and boost economic growth, but only after the immediate public health crisis of the COVID-19 outbreak has begun to subside. That will eventually help put a floor under developed market government bond yields. Chart 4The Backdrop Remains Conducive To Global Bond Yields Staying Low As we discussed in a recent weekly report, three elements must all happen before a true and lasting bottom for both risk assets and bond yields can begin to take place (Chart 4):1   The net number of new COVID-19 cases must begin to slow in critical countries like the US and Italy, a first step before the lockdown restrictions can start to be lifted; The US dollar (USD) must peak out and begin to roll over, taking stress off non-US borrowers of USD-denominated debt; The VIX must sustainably fall back from the levels above 40 that imply very volatile markets and continued investor nervousness about the future. Global government bond yields are likely to remain relatively range bound over the next month or two, at least.  Out of this list, the slowing in the number of new cases of the virus in Italy is a positive sign, as is the VIX falling back to the mid-40s. The sticky USD is still a major issue, however, particularly for borrowers with major dollar debts in the emerging world. There is not yet an “all clear” from this checklist, suggesting that global government bond yields are likely to remain relatively range bound over the next month or two, at least. This means bond investors need to consider alternative strategies to boost the yield of their government bond portfolios. Bottom Line: The deepening global recession has prompted similar monetary easing measures by virtually every developed economy central bank. With policy rates near zero everywhere, government bond yield differentials between countries have been largely eliminated. Searching For More Attractive Yields - With Currency Hedging When discussing our country allocation strategy, we have always looked at the yields and relative returns of government bonds in each country in hedged currency terms rather than in local currency terms. This is to remove the significant return volatility coming from currency exposure, while also making an appropriate “apples-to-apples” comparison of the yields on offer in each country. We have chosen the USD as the “base currency” for all these comparisons. In Chart 5, we show a static snapshot of the government bond yield curves, in local currency terms, for the US, Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Japan, Canada and Australia. The US, Canada and Australia remain the relative high-yielders within the major developed markets, although the “riskier” credits of Italy and Spain offer the highest outright yields. Unhedged German yields look particularly unattractive here, with the entire yield curve offering yields below 0%. Chart 5Currency-Unhedged Global Government Bond Yield Curves Chart 6USD-Hedged Global Government Bond Yield Curves In Chart 6, we show those same yield curves, but with the non-US yields all shown on a USD-hedged basis. The yields include the net gain/cost of hedging foreign currency back into US dollars using 3-month currency forwards. Shown this way, the non-US yield curves can be more directly compared to the “base” US Treasury curve. Looking at those yields shows that there is a much tighter convergence of yields with the US for most countries, but in a relative narrower range between 0.5% and 1.25% across the full maturity spectrum. The Fed’s rapid easing cycle, which started with the 75bps of rate cuts in the summer of 2019 and continued with the rapid move to a near-zero funds rate during the COVID-19 crisis, has dramatically altered the calculus for both global bond country allocation and currency hedging. Chart 7Fed Rate Cuts Have Reduced The Yield Advantage of USTs Chart 8Fed Rate Cuts Have Taken The Carry Out Of The USD First, the Fed’s easing cycle triggered a major decline in US Treasury yields that was not matched in other countries, eliminating much of the unhedged yield advantage of Treasuries over non-US peers (Chart 7). At the same time, the Fed’s rate cuts eliminated much of the interest rate “carry” of owning US dollars versus other currencies. The amount of that reduction was significant, with the gain of hedging a euro or yen currency exposure into dollars reduced from nearly around 250bps in the spring of 2019 to just over 100bps today (Chart 8). That dramatically alters the attractiveness of even negative-yielding German and Japanese government bonds, whose yields could once have been transformed into a relatively high USD-based yield via currency hedging. The Fed’s easing cycle triggered a major decline in US Treasury yields that was not matched in other countries, eliminating much of the unhedged yield advantage of Treasuries over non-US peers.  At the same time, the Fed’s rate cuts eliminated much of the interest rate “carry” of owning US dollars versus other currencies. Country Allocation Strategy Implications For dedicated global government bond investors, the only way to earn meaningfully higher yields in the current environment is to consider selective currency hedging of bond exposures. In Tables 1-4, we show 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year government bond yields for the major developed economy bond markets. The yields are hedged into USD, EUR, GBP and JPY, to allow comparisons of foreign yields for investors with those four base currencies. Table 1Currency-Hedged 2-Year Government Bond Yields Table 2Currency-Hedged 5-Year Government Bond Yields Table 3Currency-Hedged 10-Year Government Bond Yields Table 4Currency-Hedged 30-Year Government Bond Yields For USD-based investors, there are still some interesting opportunities available to find a USD-hedged foreign yield that can exceed that of US Treasuries. The higher-yielding European markets like Italy and Spain are the obvious places to find yield, and we continue to recommend those bonds with the ECB now buying more of the riskier euro area government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program. However, Canadian, Australian and French bonds – hedged into USD – all offer intriguing yield pickups over US Treasuries. Even the negative yields available in Japan and Switzerland look interesting when expressed in USD terms, although that is not the case for negative yielding German bonds. Canadian, Australian and French bonds – hedged into USD – all offer intriguing yield pickups over US Treasuries. Even the negative yields available in Japan and Switzerland look interesting when expressed in USD terms, although that is not the case for negative yielding German bonds. In Tables 5-8, the currency-hedged yields for each country are shown as a spread to the relevant “base” bond yield for each currency. For example, under the “EUR” column in Table 6, the cells show the yield spread between 5-year government bonds hedged into euros and 5-year German bonds. Here, we can see that there are far fewer opportunities for euro-based bond investors to find non-European yields that offer adequate yield pickups versus German yields. The pickings are even less slim for Japanese investors, with many non-Japanese yields trading below Japanese yields on a JPY-hedged basis. Table 5Currency-Hedged 2-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Versus The Table 6Currency-Hedged 5-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Versus The Table 7Currency-Hedged 10-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Versus The Table 8Currency-Hedged 30-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Versus The In sum, looking across all eight tables shown, the most consistently attractive yields, across all currencies and maturities, can be found in Australia, Canada, France, Italy and Spain. Bottom Line: Opportunities still exist in some countries to create synthetically “higher” yields relative to low local rates by hedging the currency exposure of foreign bonds. Italy and Spain government bonds offer the most attractive yields, hedged into any of the major currencies (USD, EUR, GBP, JPY). Among the lower yielders, Canadian, Australian, French and Japanese government bonds offer the most attractive yield pickups, on a currency-hedged basis, versus yields in the US, Germany, and the UK.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks To Markets: Redefining "Whatever It Takes"", dated March 24, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns