ポリシー

Highlights Financial markets are in a state of upheaval, and no one knows where or when they’ll bottom: We reiterate that it’s too early to dive back into equities or spread product. The policy path is not nearly as clear as it was during the last crisis, and central banks and legislatures may be hard-pressed to blunt the effects of a pandemic until it’s contained: Developed-world central banks and legislatures are committed to doing whatever they can to aid their economies, but their measures won’t gain full traction until the coronavirus is bottled up. Uncertainty breeds opportunities, however, … : There’s a good chance that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater as the selling accentuates and turns indiscriminate. … so we’re seeking out the most attractive risk-reward profiles: Those with cash who keep their head may find multiple opportunities to earn outsized profits. We’re actively trying to insulate ourselves from the current surge of emotion. Feature We don’t know. We don’t know where stocks will bottom, or when. We don’t know how much the economy will contract, or how long second-round effects will extend the recession. We don’t know how many businesses will go bust, or how many people will lose jobs and default on mortgages and other loans. But no one ever does in the midst of crashes, or when a sudden-stop economic tsunami looms, and only the foolish, naïve or arrogant think they do. Investing is never a sure thing, and its difficulty is a feature, not a bug. Alpha is earned by correctly intuiting securities’ future direction from a limited number of data points. We were slow to grasp the global health ramifications of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, and the probability of a 2020 recession turned out to be considerably larger than we judged. We were also off the mark when we said the economy would likely bottom swiftly, roughly tracing the course of a V. We did not foresee the economically crippling strictures that would be imposed to slow COVID-19’s spread. We now recognize that the recession will be quite severe and that the market rout has further to go for as long as the self-reinforcing adverse consequences from quarantine-like conditions continue unabated. We suspect that markets are giving short shrift to the idea that something could short-circuit the vicious circle, however, and on that basis we think the outlook may not be as unrelentingly gloomy as market action is making it out to be. To be clear, we do not think risk assets have bottomed. We do not think investors should be in any rush whatsoever to buy stocks or spread product. Investors with cash should not lose sight of the fact that they are in control right now, and they should strike a hard bargain before parting with it. We still have a constructive 12-month view, however, and we do think investors should be making lists of assets they find attractive and the prices where they’d happily own them. We sketch out the reasons why across the following pages, but the nature of the analysis departs from our typical data-driven process. Market action has left the data far behind as investors have rushed to apply valuation haircuts in advance of economic releases that are sure to be dreadful. We are therefore pulling our focus out to 30,000 feet in this report, and highlighting the mindset we’re trying to bring to the task of navigating markets caught in the throes of peak fear. Crises Happen [W]hen the crisis began, governments around the world were too slow to act. When action came, it was late and inadequate. Policy was always behind the curve, always chasing an escalating crisis. And as the crisis intensified and more dramatic government action was required, the emergency actions meant to provide confidence and reassurance too often added to public anxiety and to investor uncertainty. The force of government support was not comprehensive or quick enough to withstand the deepening pressure brought on by a weakening economy. … We believe that the policy response has to be comprehensive, and forceful. There is more risk and greater cost in gradualism than in aggressive action. We believe that action has to be sustained until recovery is firmly established.1 Monetary and fiscal policy measures can still move markets, but their full effect won't be felt until the coronavirus is contained. Here we go again. Confronted with freefalling markets and the prospect of widespread business failures, Congress is preparing a gigantic fiscal stimulus package aimed at limiting the second-order effects of the crippling measures implemented to stem COVID-19’s spread and the Fed has already raided its 2008-9 playbook (Table 1). Officials could lift much of Treasury Secretary Geithner’s 2009 remarks announcing the stress tests to explain the rationale for the measures they’re proposing now. The difference is that policymakers in 2008 and 2009 could directly wield their monetary and fiscal tools to backstop a wobbling banking system, whereas now, the potent resources they’ve marshaled to spur the economy won’t be able to take full effect until the pandemic recedes. Table 1Borrowing From The 2008-09 Playbook As much as investors pine for a policy measure that puts a firewall around markets, and the cumulative global monetary and fiscal responses become truly substantial, the selloff may continue to rage until withering deleveraging pressure abates. The pattern may be very similar to 2009, when the S&P 500 didn’t bottom until four weeks after the financial crisis effectively ended upon Secretary Geithner’s pledge that the Treasury would provide sufficient capital to any of the largest 19 banks that failed the stress tests (Chart 1). Chart 1Deleveraging Pressure Might Drag On Stocks Even After Policymakers Fire Their Bazookas One Damn Thing After Another As we noted at the outset, investors are currently bedeviled by a multitude of significant unknowns about the coronavirus. Even epidemiologists don’t know if social distancing measures will be enough to arrest its spread within the US, how severe the mortality rate will be, or how long it will take to develop more effective treatment protocols. The current plunge was triggered by a pandemic that hadn’t occurred on a similar scale since the 1918-19 Spanish influenza outbreak, but significant unknowns are at the heart of every financial market panic. We were in the audience at the Economic Club of New York in October 2007, during the early stages of the subprime crisis, when Fed Chair Bernanke, asked what market and economic information he would like to have to improve the Fed’s decision-making process, replied, “I’d like to know what those damn things [securitized credit products] are worth.”2 Markets’ Outstanding Characteristic As Benjamin Graham pointed out repeatedly in The Intelligent Investor, markets have a deeply entrenched tendency to overreact. “The market is always making mountains out of molehills and exaggerating ordinary vicissitudes into major setbacks.”3 “[W]hen an individual company … begins to lose ground in the economy, Wall Street is quick to assume that its future is entirely hopeless and it should be avoided at any price.”4 “[T]he outstanding characteristic of the stock market is its tendency to react excessively to favorable and unfavorable influences.”5 In times of severe stress, the market tendency to overreact at the individual-stock level radiates out to the entire market. As the buzzards circle, and the margin calls arrive, investors scramble to sell stocks that have managed to dodge the brunt of the decline, and therefore bring something closer to their perceived fair value than the stocks that have already been savaged. In Dennis Gartman’s memorable phrasing, “when the cops raid the house of ill repute, they take away the good girls and the piano player, too.” The indiscriminate selling that draws better stocks into the vortex creates opportunities, and it seems to us that there must be many sound issues that are being tarred with the same brush as companies in the travel, hospitality, restaurant and brick-and-mortar retail industries, and the oil producers who are caught in the Russia-Saudi Arabia crossfire. Outstanding Investors’ Characteristics About 25 years ago, we read the Market Wizards profiles of elite traders before interviewing for trading positions with broker-dealers. We distilled them into seven characteristics of successful traders that were at the heart of our pitch: Competitiveness, Humility, Ability to Psychologically Handle Losses, Patience, Discipline, Emotional Detachment and Willingness to Be a Contrarian. We haven’t worked on a trading desk in a while, but those qualities would suit all investors, and we think they’re especially apropos at times of peak emotion. No one can manufacture them out of nothing, but by keeping them in mind, and trying to live up to them, we can draw on the reserves we do possess to make better decisions in the midst of the rout (Table 2). Cash is precious right now, and investors should part with it only when they're certain they're getting quite a bit in return. Table 2Honing One's Mental Edge What Now? We reiterate that it is too early to re-risk portfolios. Markets in the throes of daily convulsions are not healthy markets, and we do not expect that stocks will bottom until there is evidence that the global virus infection curve is flattening. Investors should always prune or exit positions that have become poor fits as the backdrop changes, but we would not dramatically alter asset allocation strategies now. Take a deep breath, and focus on the internal aspects you can control. Cash is precious during major selloffs, because it stabilizes portfolios while the storm rages and provides valuable optionality when it inevitably ends. We would deploy it slowly, via limit orders below the market in selected stocks that have been unfairly lumped in with the most vulnerable issues. We continue to embrace the idea of writing out-of-the-money puts in stocks we would happily own at lower levels. When the VIX spent most of last week in the 70s and 80s (Chart 2), implied volatilities on single-stock options soared into the triple digits. In the four largest banks, it was possible to earn an annualized return exceeding 100% by writing an April put between 12 and 15% below last sale (Box, page 8). Similar opportunities must be available in other besieged industries. Chart 2Implied Volatility On S&P 500 Index Options Made A New All-Time High These are unquestionably trying times for investors of all stripes, but they are especially hard on those with long-only mandates. Professional investors add much of their value by saving their clients from themselves – by keeping them from succumbing to the temptation to go all-in near market tops and run screaming from risk assets near market bottoms. We all need to make a conscious effort to overcome counterproductive emotions and impulses when markets plunge; reminders that the general pattern is similar, even if the specific circumstances change, help us to keep our eye on the ball. Trying to live up to the seven items we memorized 25 years ago when trying to secure a junior seat on a trading desk does, too.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Box: Extreme Volatility In SIFI Bank Options There are two possible outcomes for an investor who writes a put option. The option will expire without being exercised, in which case the writer will pocket the premium, or the holder will exercise it, compelling the writer to purchase the stock at the strike price. The writer keeps the premium in that case, too, so that his/her basis in the stock is equivalent to the strike price less the premium. The top panel in Table 3 shows the pricing data for April puts on the four largest banks with strike prices 12 to 15% below Thursday’s closing prices. The bottom panel uses that data to calculate the implied annualized return for each put option in the event that it is not exercised, and the option writer’s basis in the stock as a share of its tangible book value in the event that it is. Table 3Insuring SIFI Equities Is Tremendously Expensive We understand that banks are on the credit front lines, and that defaults will impair their book value. We further understand that their net interest margins, and therefore their revenues, are pressured by declines in longer-term interest rates, though it is our long-held conviction that markets overestimate the largest banks’ exposure to a flattening yield curve. The decision to own them is hardly a slam dunk, but the cost of insuring against further declines is staggering. We recognize that not every investor has discretion to write puts, and it is not something to be done lightly in any event. Writers of puts on SIFI banks are being paid annualized returns of 100% because equity prices are plunging, and investors are especially worried about banks’ exposure to the spreading pain. The compensation is so high, however, that we think the risk-reward proposition merits careful consideration. It may not be a no-brainer to write puts on the SIFI banks right now, but we certainly wouldn’t buy them at these prices. Footnotes 1 Prepared Remarks by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Introducing the Financial Stability Plan, February 10, 2009. Accessed from https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg18.aspx on March 18, 2020. 2https://www.econclubny.org/legacyarchive/-/blogs/2007-ben-bernanke Accessed on March 18, 2020. The referenced Q&A exchange begins at the 51:49 mark. 3 Graham, Benjamin, The Intelligent Investor, HarperCollins: New York, 2005, p. 97. 4Ibid, p. 15 5Ibid, p. 18

特別レポート

Dear Client, This week, I provided an update through a webcast on the economic and financial market outlook in the era of the COVID-19 outbreak. You can access the webcast here. In lieu of our regular report this week, we are sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan shows why the most widely cited estimate of the US neutral rate of interest, the Laubach & Williams estimate of “R-star”, is very likely wrong and that the true neutral rate may be higher than many investors believe. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, this underscores that they have the potential to rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once a post-COVID-19 expansion takes hold. I hope you find the report insightful. Please note that next week we will be publishing our quarterly Strategy Outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the real neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even once economic recovery takes hold unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). This report revisits the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrates why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. We also outline an inferential approach that investors can use to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. The core conclusion for investors is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, investors should avoid dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about yields as they may rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once a post-COVID-19 expansion takes hold. Feature Over the past several weeks financial markets have moved rapidly to price in a global recession stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. As financial market participants began to turn to policy makers for support, eyes focused first on the Federal Reserve, and then fiscal authorities. Earlier this week, the ECB joined the party and announced aggressive further measures of its own. When responding to the Fed’s return to the lower bound and its other recent monetary policy decisions, many market participants have expressed the view that the Fed is largely impotent to deal with a global pandemic. There are three elements to this view. The first is that interest rate cuts are ill equipped to stimulate domestic demand if quarantine measures or other forms of “social distancing” are in effect. The second element is that the Fed has only been capable of delivering a fraction of the reduction in interest rates compared to what has occurred in response to previous contractions. The third aspect of this view is that because the neutral rate of interest is so much lower now than it was in the past, Fed rate cuts will not be as stimulative as they were before. Chart 1Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate While we at least partly agree with the first and second elements of this view, we feel strongly that the third is flawed. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013,1 and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. This time series, which is regularly updated by the New York Fed,2 suggests that the real fed funds rate reached neutral territory in the first quarter of 2019 (Chart 1). With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even beyond the near term unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). In this Special Report we revisit the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrate why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. Our analysis does not reveal a precise alternative estimate of the neutral rate, although we do provide some inferential perspective on how investors may be able to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. However, the core insight emanating from our report, particularly for US fixed income investors, is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, this underscores that they have the potential to rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once economic activity recovers. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise may be larger than many investors currently expect. Demystifying The LW R-star Estimate The LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest has gained credibility for three reasons. First, as noted above, the evolution of the series fits with the secular stagnation narrative re-popularized by Larry Summers. Second, the series is essentially sponsored by the Federal Reserve even if it is not officially part of the Fed’s forecasting framework, as its two creators are long-time Fed employees (Thomas Laubach is a director of the Fed’s Board of Governors, and John Williams is the current President of the New York Fed). But, in our view, there is a third important reason that global investors have accepted the LW R-star estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the methodology used to generate the estimate is extremely technically complex, and thus is difficult for most investors to penetrate. Much of the technical complexity of the LW estimate is centered around the use of a statistical procedure called a Kalman filter (“KF”). Simply described, the KF is an algorithm that tries to estimate an unobservable variable based on 1) an idea of how the unobservable variable might relate to an observable variable (the “measurement equation”), and 2) an idea of how the unobservable variable might change through time (the “transition equation”). Through a repeated process of simulating the unobserved variable based on a set of assumptions, the KF is able to compare predicted results to actual results on an observation-by-observation basis, and use that information to generate ever more reliable future estimates of the unobserved variable (Chart 2). Chart 2A Very Simplified Overview Of The Kalman Filter Algorithm We acknowledge that a full technical treatment of the Kalman Filter as it relates to the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest is beyond the scope of this report, and we provide a more technical overview in Box 1. But what emerges from a detailed analysis of the model is that the Kalman Filter jointly estimates R-star, potential GDP growth, potential GDP, and the variable “z”, the determinants of R-star that are not explained by potential GDP growth. As we will highlight in the next section, this joint estimation of these four variables is a crucial aspect of the model, because a valid estimate of R-star necessitates a valid estimate of the remaining variables. Box 1 A Technical Overview Of The Laubach & Williams R-star Model Debunking The LW R-star Estimate Before criticizing the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest, it is important for us to note that we have the utmost respect for the Federal Reserve and its research methods. We fully acknowledge that the LW R-star estimation is rooted in solid economic theory, and we have identified no technical errors in the setup of the LW model. Nevertheless, valid analytical efforts sometimes lead to problematic real-world results, and there are two key reasons to believe that the Kalman filter in the LW model is almost certainly misspecifying R-star, at least in terms of its estimate over the past two decades. The first reason relates to the sensitivity of the model to the interval of estimation (the period over which R-star is estimated). Chart 3 presents the range of quarterly estimates of R-star since 2005, along with the difference between the high and low end of the range in the second panel. The chart shows that while previous estimates of R-star have generally been stable for values ranging between the early-1980s and 2006/2007, pre-1980 estimates have varied quite substantially and we have seen material revisions to the estimates over the past decade. Q1 2018 serves as an excellent example: in that quarter R-star was estimated to be 0.14%; today, the Q1 2018 R-star estimate sits at 0.92%. Chart 3Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates   However, Table 1 and Chart 4 highlight the real instability of the Kalman filter estimation by demonstrating the effect of varying the starting point of the model (please see Box 2 for a brief description of how our estimation of R-star using the LW approach differs slightly from the original procedure). Laubach & Williams originally estimated R-star beginning in Q1 1961; Table 1 shows what happens to today’s estimate of R-star simply by incrementally varying the starting point of the model from Q1 1958 to Q4 1979. Table 1Alternative Current LW Estimates Of R-star By Model Starting Point Chart 4Alternative Starting Points Produce Wildly Different Estimates Of R-star Today Box 2 The Laubach & Williams R-star Model With Simplified Inflation Expectations The table highlights that the model fails to even generate a result in a majority of the cases (only 39 out of 88 of the model runs were error-free). In addition, Chart 4 shows that of the successful estimates of R-star using the LW procedure and alternate starting dates of the model, the estimate of R-star today varies from -2% (in one case) to +2%. Excluding the one extremely negative outlier results in an effective estimate range of 0% to 2%, but the key point for investors is that this range is massive and underscores that the original model’s estimate of R-star today is heavily and unduly influenced by the interval of estimation. Investors should also note that of all of the alternative estimates of R-star today shown in Chart 4, the estimate using the original interval is very much on the low end of the distribution. The second (and most important) reason to believe that the LW estimate is misspecifying R-star is that the output gap estimate generated by the model is almost certainly invalid, at least over the past two decades. Chart 5 presents the LW output gap estimate alongside an average of the CBO, OECD, and IMF estimates of the gap; panel 1 shows the official current LW output gap estimate, whereas panel 2 shows the range of output gap estimates that are generated using the different estimation intervals highlighted in Table 1 and Chart 4. Given that the Kalman filter in the LW model jointly determines R-star and the output gap (by way of estimating potential output via estimating potential GDP growth) and that these estimates are dependent on each other, Chart 5 highlights that in order to believe the LW R-star estimate investors must believe three things: That the US economy was chronically below potential in the late-1990s when the unemployment rate was below 5%, real GDP growth averaged nearly 5%, and the equity market was booming, That output exceeded potential in 2004/2005 by a magnitude not seen since the late-1970s / early-1980s despite an average unemployment rate, That the 2008/2009 US recession was not particularly noteworthy in terms of its deviation from potential output, and that the economy had returned to potential output by 2010/2011 when the unemployment rate was in the range of 8-9%. Chart 5The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades While we do not believe any of these three statements, the third is especially unlikely. Chart 6 highlights that the economic expansion from 2009 – 2020 was the weakest on record in the post-war era in terms of average annual real per capita GDP growth. To us, this is a clear symptom of a chronic deficiency in aggregate demand, and that it is essentially unreasonable to argue that the economy was operating at full employment prior to 2014/2015. This means that the Kalman filter is generating incorrect and unreliable estimates of the output gap, which means in turn that the filter’s estimation of R-star is almost assuredly wrong. Chart 6The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 How Can Investors Tell What The Neutral Rate Is? An Inferential Approach Table 2 presents the sensitivity of the original Q1 1961 LW estimate of R-star to a series of counterfactual scenarios for inflation, real GDP growth, nominal interest rates, and import and oil prices since mid-2009. While these scenarios do not in any way improve the validity of the LW R-star estimate, they do help clarify the theoretical basis of the model and they help reveal how investors may infer whether the neutral rate of interest is higher or lower than prevailing market rates, and whether it is rising or falling. Table 2 highlights that today’s estimate of R-star using the original LW approach is mostly sensitive to our counterfactual scenarios for growth and interest rates, but not inflation or oil prices. Shifting down import price growth also has a meaningful effect on R-star, but since core import price growth has been particularly weak over the past several years (Chart 7), it seems unreasonable to suggest that they have been abnormally high and thus “explain” a low R-star estimate today. Table 2Sensitivity Of Current LW R-star Estimate To Counterfactual Scenarios (2009 - Present) Chart 7Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Table 2 essentially highlights that the entire question of the neutral rate of interest over the past decade, and the core contradiction that led to the re-emergence of the secular stagnation thesis, can effectively be boiled down to the following simple question: “Why hasn’t US economic growth been stronger this cycle, given that interest rates have been so low?” Based on the (hopefully uncontroversial) view that interest rates influence economic activity and that economic activity influences inflation, we propose the following checklist for investors to ask themselves in order to not only determine the answer to this important question, but to help identify whether R-star in any given country is likely higher or lower than existing policy rates at any given point in time. Are interest rates above or below the prevailing level of economic growth? Are interest rates rising or falling, and how intensely? Are there identifiable non-monetary shocks (positive or negative) that appear to be influencing economic activity? Is private sector credit growth keeping pace with economic growth? Are debt service burdens in the economy high or low? The first question reflects the most basic view of R-star, which is that the real neutral rate of interest should be equal to, or at least closely related to, the potential growth rate of the economy, ceteris paribus. Questions 2 through 5 attempt to determine whether ceteris paribus holds. In terms of how the answers to these questions relate to identifying the neutral rate, consider two economies, “Economy A” and “Economy B” (Chart 8). Economy A has broadly stable or slightly rising interest rates that are well below prevailing rates of economic growth (questions 1 & 2), no obvious beneficial shocks to domestic demand from fiscal policy or other factors (question 3), and strong private sector credit growth that is perhaps above or strongly above the current pace of GDP growth (question 4). Chart 8''Economy A'', Versus ''Economy B'' Inferentially, it would seem that interest rates in this hypothetical economy are below R-star today. Question 5 is in our list because the more that active private sector leveraging occurs (thus pushing up debt burdens), the more that we would expect R-star in the future to fall. This is because debt payments as a share of income cannot rise forever, and we would expect that the capacity of economy A’s central bank to raise interest rates in the future are negatively related to economy A’s private sector debt service burden today. Now, imagine another economy (“Economy B”) with interest rates well below average rates of economic growth, an interest rate trend that is flat-to-down, no identifiable non-monetary policy shocks that are restricting aggregate demand, persistently sluggish credit growth, and high private sector debt service burdens in the past. If economy B is growing (even sluggishly) and not in the middle of a recession, it would seem that prevailing interest rates are below R-star, but not significantly so. In this scenario it would seem reasonable to conclude that R-star in economy B has fallen non-trivially below its potential growth rate, and that interest rate increases are likely to move monetary policy into restrictive territory earlier than otherwise would be the case. Is The United States “Economy B”? From the perspective of some investors, our description of economy B above perfectly captures the experience of the US over the past decade: an extremely low Fed funds rate, sluggish to weak growth and inflation, all the result of a huge build-up in leverage and debt service burdens during the last economic cycle. We do not doubt that R-star fell in the US for some period of time during the global financial crisis and in the early phase of the economic recovery. But we doubt that it is as low today as the secular stagnation narrative would imply, in large part because it ignores several important aspects concerning questions 2 through 5 noted above. Chart 9Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non- Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies: Over the past 12 years, there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnect between growth and interest rates: 1) a prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014, 2) the euro area sovereign debt crisis, 3) fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 (Chart 9), 4) the US dollar / oil price shock of 2014, and 5) the recent trade war between the US and China. Several of these shocks have been policy-driven, and in the case of austerity the negative consequences of that policy has led to a lasting change in thinking among fiscal authorities (outside of Japan) that is unlikely to reverse in the near-future. Private sector credit growth: Chart 10 highlights the extent of household deleveraging noted above by showing the growth in total household liabilities over the past decade alongside income growth. Panel 2 shows the leveraging trend of firms, as represented by the nonfinancial corporate sector debt-to-GDP ratio. Chart 10 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it is now growing again and has largely closed the gap with income growth. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector has clearly leveraged itself over the course of the expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. While it is true that firms have largely leveraged themselves to buy back stock instead of significantly increasing capital expenditures, in our view this reflects the fact that US consumer demand was impaired for several years due to deleveraging. We doubt that firms would have altered their capital structures to this degree if they did not view interest rates as extremely low. Chart 10Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Debt service burdens: Chart 11 highlights that US household debt service burdens were at very elevated levels prior to the financial crisis, suggesting that the neutral rate did fall for some time following the recession. But today, the debt burden facing households is the lowest it has been in the past 40 years due to both rate reductions and deleveraging, arguing against the view that household debt levels will structurally weigh on interest rates in the years to come. Chart 12 shows that the picture is different for nonfinancial corporations, as the substantial leveraging noted above has indeed raised debt service burdens for firms. However, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio remains 400 basis points below early-2000 levels when excess corporate sector liabilities had a clear impact on the economy, suggesting that the Fed’s capacity to raise interest rates still exists following the onset of economic recovery if corporate sector credit growth does not rise sharply relative to GDP over the coming 6-12 months. Chart 11The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low Chart 12Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise The intensity of recent interest rate changes: Finally, many investors have pointed to sluggish housing activity over the past three years as evidence of a low neutral rate. However, Chart 13 highlights that the rise in the 30-year US mortgage rate from late-2016 to late-2018 was one of the largest two-year changes in US history, and Chart 14 shows that the growth in household mortgage credit did not fall below its trend during this period until Q4 2018, when the US stock market fell 20% from its high in response to the economic consequences of the US/China trade war. Chart 14 also shows that mortgage credit growth responded sharply to a recent reduction in interest rates. All in all, Charts 13 & 14 cast doubt on the notion that the level of mortgage rates over the past three years reached restrictive territory. Chart 13Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Chart 14A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market Investment Conclusions In the face of a global pandemic and an attendant global recession this year, the idea of eventual Fed rate hikes and the notion that the US economy will be able to tolerate them likely seems preposterous to many investors. We agree that over the coming 6-12 months US Treasury yields are unlikely to rise; even at current levels of the 10-year Treasury yield, we are reluctant to call a trough. Chart 15US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade However, Chart 15 highlights that over a long-term time horizon, the bond market is now essentially priced for a repeat of the ten-year path of the Fed funds rate following the global financial crisis. While some investors will view this as a reasonable expectation in the face of what they see as a persistent and unexplainable gap between growth and interest rates over the past decade, we think this gap is explainable and we highly doubt that a pandemic with minimal mortality risk to the working age population and the young will cause the US economy to be afflicted with active consumer deleveraging lasting 4 to 6-years, substantial and wide-ranging fiscal austerity, persistently rising trade tariffs, and sharply lower oil prices. So while we agree that the US economy will be substantially cyclically affected by COVID-19, US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise following the upcoming recession may be larger than many investors currently believe.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    "IMF Fourteenth Annual Research Conference in Honor of Stanley Fischer," Washington DC, November 8, 2013. 2    "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix

特別レポート

Highlights The global pandemic is quickening the decline in globalization. Democracies can manage the virus, but it will be painful. European integration just got a major boost from Germany’s fiscal turn. Stay long the German consumer relative to the exporter. The US and UK are shifting to a “big government” approach for the first time in forty years. Go long TIPS versus equivalent-maturity nominal Treasuries. The US-China cold war is back on, after a fleeting hiatus. Stay short CNY-USD. Stay strategically long gold but go tactically long Brent crude oil relative to gold. Feature The global pandemic blindsided us this year, but it is catalyzing the past decade’s worth of Geopolitical Strategy’s themes. This week’s report is dedicated to our founder and consulting editor, Marko Papic, who spearheaded the following themes, which should be considered in light of this month’s extraordinary developments: The Apex Of Globalization: Borders are closing and the US is quarreling with both Europe and China over vulnerabilities in its medical supply chain. European Integration: Germany is embracing expansive fiscal policy and is softening its line on euro bonds. The End of Anglo-Saxon Laissez-Faire: Senate Republicans in the US are considering “helicopter money” – deficit-financed cash handouts to the public. US-China Conflict: Pandemic, recession, and the US election are combining to make a dangerous geopolitical cocktail. In this report we discuss how the coronavirus crisis is supercharging these themes, making them salient for investors in the near term. New themes will also develop from the crucible of this pandemic and global recession. Households Can’t Spend Helicopter Money Under Quarantine The global financial meltdown continues despite massive monetary and fiscal stimulus by governments across the world (Chart 1). The reason is intuitive: putting cash in people’s hands offers little solace if people are in quarantine or self-isolation and can’t spend it. Stimulus is essential and necessary to defray the costs of a collapsing economy, but doesn’t give any certainty regarding the depth and duration of the recession or the outlook for corporate earnings. Government health policy, rather than fiscal or monetary policy, will provide the critical signals in the near term. Once the market is satisfied that the West is capable of managing the pandemic, then the unprecedented stimulus has the potential to supercharge the rebound. The most important measure is still the number of new daily cases of the novel coronavirus across the world (Chart 2). Once this number peaks and descends, investors will believe the global pandemic is getting under control. It will herald a moment when consumers can emerge from their hovels and begin spending again. Chart 1Monetary/Fiscal Stimulus Not Enough To Calm Markets Chart 2Keep Watching New Daily Cases Of COVID-19 It is critical to see this number fall in Italy, proving that even in cases of government failure, the contagion will eventually calm down (Chart 3). This is essential because it is possible that an Italian-sized crisis could develop in the US or another European country, especially given that unlike Iran, these countries have large elderly populations highly susceptible to the virus. Financial markets are susceptible to more panic until the US and EU show the virus is under control. At the same time the other western democracies still need to prove they are capable of delaying and mitigating the virus now that they are fully mobilized. They should be able to – social distancing works. The province of Lodi, Italy offers an example of successful non-pharmaceutical measures (isolation). It enacted stricter policies earlier than its neighbors and succeeded in turning down the number of daily new cases (Chart 4).1 But it may also be testing less than its wealthier neighbor Bergamo, where the military has recently been deployed to remove corpses. Chart 3Market Needs Italy Contagion To Subside Chart 4Lodi Suggests Social Distancing Works More stringent measures, including lockdowns, are necessary in “hot zones” where the outbreak gets out of control. It is typical of democracies to mobilize slowly, in war or other crises. Italy brought the crisis home for the G7 nations, jolting them into unified action under Mario Draghi’s debt-crisis slogan of “whatever it takes.” Borders are now closed, schools and gatherings are canceled, policy and military forces are deploying, and emergency production of supplies is under way. Populations are responding to their leaders. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator once the danger is clearly demonstrated. Still, in the near term, Spain, Germany, France, the UK, and the United States have painful battles to fight to ensure they do not become the next Italy, with an overloaded medical system leading to a vicious spiral of infections and deaths (Chart 5). Chart 5Painful Battles Ahead For US And EU Until financial markets verify that current measures are working, they are susceptible to panics and selling. In the United States, testing kits were delayed by more than a month because the Center for Disease Control bungled the process and failed to adopt the successful World Health Organization protocol. Some materials for testing kits are still missing. Many states will not begin testing en masse for another two weeks. This means that big spikes in new cases will occur not only now but in subsequent weeks as testing exposes more infections. Over the next month there are numerous such trigger points for markets to panic and give away whatever gains they may have made from previous attempts at a rally. Pure geopolitical risks, outlined below, reinforce this reasoning. Volatility will continue to be the dominant theme. Governments must demonstrate successes in health crisis management before monetary and fiscal measures can have their full effect. There is no amount of stimulus that can compensate for the collapse of consumer spending in advanced consumer societies (Chart 6), so consumers’ health must be put on a better trajectory first. Thus in place of economic and financial data streams, we are watching our Health Policy Checklist (Table 1) to determine if policy measures can provide reassurance to the economy and financial markets. Chart 6No Stimulus Can Offset Collapse Of Consumer Table 1Markets Need To See Health Policy Succeeding Bottom Line: For financial markets to regain confidence durably, governments must show they can manage the outbreak. This can be done but the worst is yet to come and markets will not be able to recover sustainably over the next month or two during that process. There is more upside for the US dollar and more downside for global equities ahead. The Great Fiscal Blowout Global central banks were not entirely out of options when this crisis hit – the Fed has cut rates to zero, increased asset purchases, and extended US dollar swap lines, while central banks already at the zero bound, like the ECB, have still been able to expand asset purchases radically (Table 2). Table 2Central Banks Still Had Some Options When Crisis Hit Chart 7ECB Still The Lender Of Last Resort The ECB’s new 750 billion euro Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) has led to a marked improvement in peripheral bond spreads which were blowing out, guaranteeing that the lender of last resort function remains in place even in the face of a collapse of the Italian economy that will require a massive fiscal response in the future (Chart 7). Nevertheless with rates so low, and government bond yields and yield curves heavily suppressed, investors do not have faith in monetary policy to make a drastic change to the macro backdrop for developed market economies. Fiscal policy was the missing piece. It has remained restrained due to government concerns about excessive public debt. Now the “fiscal turn” in policy has arrived with the pandemic and massive stimulus responses (Table 3). Table 3Massive Stimulus In Response To Pandemic The Anglo-Saxon world had already rejected budgetary “austerity” in 2016 with Brexit and Trump. Few Republicans dare oppose spending measures to combat a pandemic and deep recession after having voted to slash corporate taxes at the height of the business cycle in 2017.2 The Trump administration is currently vying with the Democratic leadership to see who can propose a bigger third and fourth phase to the current spending plans – $750 billion versus $1.2 trillion? Both presidential candidates are proposing $1 trillion-plus infrastructure plans that are not yet being put to Congress to consider. The Trump administration agrees with its chief Republican enemy, Mitt Romney, as well as former Obama administration adviser Jason Furman, in proposing direct cash handouts to households (“helicopter money”). The size of the US stimulus is at 7% of GDP and rising, larger than in 2008- 10. In the UK, the Conservative Party has changed fiscal course since the EU referendum. Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government had proposed an “infrastructure revolution” and the most expansive British budget in decades – and that was before the virus outbreak. Robert Chote, the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, captured the zeitgeist by saying, “Now is not a time to be squeamish about public sector debt. We ran during the Second World War budget deficits in excess of 20% of GDP five years on the trot and that was the right thing to do.”3 Now Germany and the EU are joining the ranks of the fiscally accommodative – and in a way that will have lasting effects beyond the virus crisis. Chart 8Coalition Loosened Belt Amid Succession Crisis On March 13 Germany pulled out a fiscal “bazooka” of government support. Finance Minister Olaf Scholz announced that the state bank, KfW, will be able to lend 550bn euros to any business, great or small, suffering amid the pandemic. KfW’s lending capacity was increased from 12% to 15% of GDP. But Scholz, of the SPD, and Economy Minister Peter Altmaier, of the CDU, both insist that there is “no upward limit.” This shift in German policy was the next logical step in a policy evolution that began with the European sovereign debt crisis and took several strides over the past year. The German public, battered by the Syrian refugee crisis, China’s slowdown, and the trade war, voted against the traditional ruling parties, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD). Smaller parties have been stealing their votes, namely the Greens but also (less so) the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (Chart 8). This competition has thrown the traditional parties into crisis, as it is entirely unclear how they will fare in the federal election in 2021 when long-ruling Chancellor Angela Merkel passes the baton to her as yet unknown successor. To counteract this trend, the ruling coalition began loosening its belt last year with a small stimulus package. But a true game changer always required a crisis or impetus – and the coronavirus has provided that. Germany’s shift is ultimately rooted in geopolitical constraints: Germany is a net beneficiary of the European single market and stands to suffer both economically and strategically if it breaks apart. Integration requires not only the ECB as lender of last resort but also, ultimately, fiscal transfers to keep weaker, less productive peripheral economies from abandoning the euro and devaluing their national currencies. When Germany loosens its belt, it gives license to the rest of Europe to do the same: The European Commission was obviously going to be extremely permissive toward deficits, but it has now made this explicit. Spain announced a massive 20% of GDP stimulus package, half of which is new spending, and is now rolling back the austere structural reforms of 2012. Italy is devastated by the health crisis and is rolling out new spending measures. The right-wing, big spending populist Matteo Salvini is waiting in the wings, having clashed with Brussels over deficits repeatedly in 2018-19 only to see Brussels now coming around to the need for more fiscal action. In addition to spending more, Germany is also sounding more supportive toward the idea of issuing emergency “pandemic bonds” and “euro bonds,” opening the door for a new source of EMU-wide financing. True, the crisis will bring out the self-interest of the various EU member states. For example, Germany initially imposed a cap on medical exports so that critical items would be reserved for Germans, while Italy would be deprived of badly needed supplies. But European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promptly put a stop to this, declaring, “We are all Italians now.” Fiscal policy is now a tailwind instead of a headwind. Von der Leyen is representative of the German ruling elite, but her position is in line with the median German voter, who approves of the European project and an ever closer union. Chart 9DM Budget Deficits Set To Widen Separately, it should be pointed that Japan is also going to loosen fiscal policy further. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was supposed to have already done this according to his reflationary economic policy. His decision to hike the consumer tax in 2014-15 and 2019, despite global manufacturing recessions, ran against the aim of whipping the country’s deflationary mindset. While Abe’s term will end in 2021, Abenomics will continue and evolve by a different name. His successor is much more likely now to follow through with the “second arrow” of Abenomics, government spending. Across the developed markets budget deficits are set to widen and public debt to rise, enabled by low interest rates, surging output gaps, and radical policy shifts that were long in coming (Chart 9). Bottom Line: Ultra-dovish fiscal policy is now complementing ultra-dovish monetary policy throughout the West. This was clear in the US and UK, but now Europe has joined in. Germany’s “bazooka” is the culmination of a policy evolution that began with the European debt crisis. This is an essential step to ensuring that Germany rebalances its economy and that Europe sticks together during and after the pandemic. Europe still faces enormous challenges, but now fiscal policy is a tailwind instead of a headwind. US-China: The Cold War Is Back On US-China tensions are heating back up and could provide the source of another crisis event that exacerbates the “risk off” mode in global financial markets. The underlying strategic conflict never went away – it is rooted in China’s rising geopolitical power relative to the United States. The “phase one” trade deal agreed last fall was a manifestly short-term, superficial deal meant to staunch the bleeding in China’s manufacturing sector and deliver President Trump a victory to take to the 2020 election. Beijing was never going to deliver the exorbitant promises of imports and was not likely to implement the difficult structural provisions until Trump achieved a second electoral mandate. Trump always had the option of accusing China of insufficient compliance, particularly if he won re-election. Now, however, both governments are faced with a global recession and are seeking scapegoats for the COVID-19 crisis. Xi Jinping doesn’t have an electoral constraint but he does have to maintain control of the party and rebuild popular confidence and legitimacy in the wake of the crisis. China’s private sector has suffered a series of blows since Xi took power. China’s trend growth is slowing, it is sitting on an historic debt pile, and it is now facing the deepest recession in modern memory. The protectionist threat from the United States and other nations is likely to intensify amid a global recession. Former Vice President Joe Biden has clinched the Democratic nomination and does not offer a more attractive option for China than President Trump. On the US side, Trump’s economic-electoral constraint is vanishing. Trump’s chances of reelection have been obliterated unless he manages to recreate himself as a successful “crisis president” and convince Americans not to change horses in mid-stream. Primarily this means he will focus on managing the pandemic. Yet it also gives Trump reason to try to change the subject and adopt an aggressive foreign or trade policy, particularly if the virus panic subsides. The economic downside has been removed but there could be political upside to a confrontation with China. The US public increasingly views China unfavorably and is now particularly concerned about medical supply chain vulnerabilities. A diplomatic crisis is already unfolding. China’s propaganda machine has gone into overdrive to distract its populace from the health crisis and recession. The main thrust of this campaign is to praise China’s success in halting the virus’s spread through draconian measures while criticizing the West’s ineffectual response, symbolized by Italy and the United States. This disinformation campaign escalated when Zhao Lijian, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, tweeted that COVID-19 originated in the United States. The conspiracy theory holds that it brought or deployed the coronavirus in China while a military unit visited for a friendly competition in Wuhan in October. A Hong Kong doctor who wrote an editorial exposing this thesis was forced to retract the article. President Trump responded by deliberately referring to COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus.” He defended these comments as a way of emphasizing the origin although China and others have criticized the president for dog-whistle racism. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Yang Jiechi, a top Chinese diplomat, met to address the dispute, but relations have only gotten worse. After the meeting China revoked the licenses of several prominent American journalists.4 The fact that conspiracy theories are being spouted by official and semi-official sources in the US and China reflects the dangerous combination of populism, nationalism, and jingoism flaring up in both countries – and the global recession has hardly begun.5 The phase one trade deal may collapse. Investors must now take seriously the possibility that the phase one trade deal will collapse. While China obviously will not meet its promised purchases for the year due to the recession, neither side has abandoned the deal. The CNY-USD exchange rate is still rising (Chart 10). President Trump presumably wants to maintain the deal as a feather in his cap for the election. This means that any failure would come from the China side, as an attack on Trump, or from Trump deciding he is a lame duck and has nothing to lose. These are substantial risks that would blindside the market and trigger more selling. Chart 10US And China Could Abandon Trade Deal Military and strategic tensions could also flare up in the South and East China Seas, the Korean peninsula, or the Taiwan Strait. While we have argued that Korea is an overstated geopolitical risk while Taiwan is understated, at this point both risks are completely off the radar and therefore vastly understated by financial markets. A “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis” could emerge from American deterrence or from Chinese encroachments on Taiwanese security. What is clear is that the US and China are growing more competitive, not more cooperative, as a result of the global pandemic. This is not a “G2” arrangement of global governance but a clash of nationalisms. Another risk is that President Trump would look elsewhere when he looks abroad: conflict with Iran-backed militias in Iraq is ongoing, and both Iran and Venezuela are on the verge of collapse, which could invite American action. A conflict or revolution in Iran would push up the oil price due to regional instability and would have major market-negative implications for Europe. Bottom Line: The US-China trade conflict had only been suspended momentarily. The economic collapse removes the primary constraint on conflict, and the US election is hanging in the balance, so Trump could try to cement his legacy as the president who confronted China. This is a major downside risk for markets even at current crisis lows. Investment Implications What are the market implications of the themes reviewed in this report? First, the virus will precipitate another leg down in globalization, which was already collapsing (Chart 11). Chart 11Globalization Has Peaked The US dollar will remain strong in the near term. It is too soon to go long commodities and emerging market currencies and risk assets, though it is notable that our Emerging Markets Strategy has booked profits on its short emerging market equity trade (Chart 12). Chart 12Too Soon To Go Long EM/Commodities Second, the Anglo-Saxon shift away from laissez faire leads toward dirigisme, an active state role in the economy. US stocks can outperform global stocks amid the global recession, but the rising odds that Trump will lose the election herald a generational anti-corporate turn in US policy. We are strategically long international stocks, which are far more heavily discounted. The combination of de-globalization and dirigisme is ultimately inflationary so we recommend that investors with a long-term horizon go long TIPS versus equivalent-maturity nominal Treasuries, following our US Bond Strategy. Third, Germany, the EU, and the ECB are taking dramatic steps to reinforce our theme of continued European integration. We are strategically long German consumers versus exporters and believe that recommendation should benefit once the virus outbreak is brought under control. There is more downside for EUR-USD in the near term although we remain long on a strategic (one-to-three year) horizon. Fourth, China will not come out the “winner” from the pandemic. It is suffering the first recession in modern memory and is beset by simultaneous internal and external economic challenges. It is also becoming the focus of negative attention globally due to its lack of integration into global standards. Economic decoupling is back on the table as the US may take advantage of the downturn to take protective actions. The US stimulus package in the works should be watched closely for “buy America” provisions and requirements for companies to move onshore. A Biden victory will not remove American “containment policy” directed toward China. Stay strategically long USD-CNY. The chief geopolitical insight from all of the above is that the market turmoil can be prolonged by geopolitical conflict, especially with Trump likely to be a lame duck president. With nations under extreme stress, and every nation fending for itself, the probability of conflicts is rising. We do however see the potential for collapsing oil prices to force Russia and Saudi Arabia back to the negotiating table, so we are initiating a tactical long Brent crude oil / short gold trade. Moreover we remain skeptical toward companies and assets exposed to the US-China relationship, particularly Chinese tech.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Margherita Stancati, "Lockdown of Recovering Italian Town Shows Effectiveness of Early Action," Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2020. 2 The conservatives Stephen Moore, Art Laffer, and Steve Forbes are virtually isolated in opposing the emergency fiscal measures – and will live in infamy for this, their “Mellon Doctrine” moment. 3 Costas Pitas and Andy Bruce, “UK unveils $420 billion lifeline for firms hit by coronavirus,” Reuters, March 17, 2020. 4 China retaliated against The Wall Street Journal for calling China “the sick man of Asia.” The United States responded by reducing the number of Chinese journalists licensed in the US. (Washington had earlier designated China state press as foreign government actors, which limited their permissible actions.) Beijing then ordered reporters from The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post whose licenses were set to expire in 2020 not to return. 5 Inflicting an epidemic on one’s own people is a very roundabout way to cause a global pandemic and harm the United States – obviously that is not what happened in China. It is also absurd to think that the US has essentially initiated World War III by committing an act of bioterrorism against China.

Dear clients, In addition to this short weekly report, you will also receive a Special Report penned by my colleague Jonathan LaBerge on Sweden, with implications for the SEK. I hope you will find the report both useful and insightful. In the interim, I wish safety for you and your families. Best Regards, Chester Ntonifor Highlights The lack of dollar liquidity had been a tailwind behind the dollar bull market. However, an expansion in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet should help stem the global shortage of dollars. Ditto if there is an expansion of swap lines beyond the five major central banks. The risk is that the shortage of dollars has already begun to trigger negative feedback loops in a few countries. Until tentative signs emerge that the global economy is on better footing, expect spikes in the dollar. The caveat is that a big fiscal spending package in the US should lead to a deterioration in the current account. This will improve the offshore dollar liquidity situation. Feature The latest flare-up in risk aversion has also rotated to the offshore dollar funding market. Across G10 countries, US dollar cross-currency basis swaps - a measure of the costs to obtain greenbacks domestically - have been rising at an alarming pace. During the Federal Reserve’s emergency meeting on Sunday, swap lines were extended to five major central banks. The terms were very generous, with costs at the overnight index swap rate + 25 basis points, as well as a maturity of 84 days. However, the following day, the dollar continued its fervent rally, with the euro-US cross-currency basis swap touching -120 points (Chart 1). Chart 1A Broad-Based Funding Crisis The lack of follow through from the Fed’s liquidity injection highlights a fundamental risk to our sanguine view that the dollar should top out sooner rather than later. While we maintain this view, it has been discouraging that the DXY has broken above 100. We had anticipated a move higher on February 21, prompting us to close our long DXY position for a loss. Today, we suggest waiting for better signposts to short the greenback outright.1 US Dollar Flows The dollar remains the reserve currency of today, with the Fed at the center of the global financial architecture. The process behind dollar shortages is a simple one: Chart 2Global FX Reserve Growth Was Anemic Countries that are experiencing falling trade balances (because of a trade slowdown or trade war) will see a fall in their foreign exchange reserves. This naturally means that their supply of dollars is declining (Chart 2). Wary of seeing local dollar interest rates rise (leading to a higher dollar, and some companies going bust), central banks could sell dollars to the private sector in exchange for local currency. As a reserve currency, the US trade deficit is also settled in dollars. This naturally leads to a flow of greenbacks outside US borders. However, it also means that the current account deficit finances the budget deficit. Therefore, a falling trade surplus in exporting countries naturally means a falling deficit in the US. In order to stimulate the US economy, the authorities pursue macroeconomic policies that tend to weaken the dollar, such as lowering rates and/or running a wider fiscal deficit. The central bank helps finance this fiscal deficit via expanding the monetary base (Seigniorage). The drop in rates causes the yield curve to steepen. This incentivizes banks to lend, which in turn boosts US money supply. As the economy recovers and demand for imports (machinery, commodities, consumer goods) rises, the current account deficit widens. This leads to a renewed outflow of dollars. It is easy to see where the process can get short-circuited, especially via an external shock. If you accept the premise that the sum of the Fed’s custody holdings together with the US monetary base constitutes the root of global dollar liquidity, then it is not yet accelerating fast enough.2 Like in the past, the Fed has been quick to correct the situation: Recently, it has instituted swap lines. However, they remain inadequate for three key reasons: The swap lines should be extended from the five central banks to many countries, because Covid-19 is now a global pandemic. Not even China (along with other emerging markets) was  included in the swap agreements. The swap lines usually have terms/limits/amounts, which means that even if the domestic central bank decided to be the lender of last resort, it could still run short of dollars. Widespread fiscal measures have been announced, but this has been mostly geared towards sustaining income. Until governments unilaterally backstop airlines, shipping firms, restaurants, or any other company afflicted by the virus from going bankrupt, a negative self-reinforcing feedback loop will remain. Chart 3The Dollar As An Arbiter Of Growth We continue to recommend standing aside on the dollar until the dust has settled. Longer-term fundamentals suggest a dollar-bearish view, but until the world gets a sense that global growth is bottoming soon, the dollar uptrend remains intact (Chart 3). We continue to use internals and market fundamentals as a guide for when to time a top.3  Finally, we have been stopped out of a few trades and are tightening stops on a few. Please see this week’s trade table for a few recommendations.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report,  “The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar”, dated February 28, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2   Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report,  “Is The World Short Of Dollars?”, dated September 13, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3   Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report,  “Currency Technicals And Market Internals”, dated March 13, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

特別レポート

Highlights Since 2004, Sweden’s private sector leverage trend can be explained using a simple Taylor rule approach. The approach clearly highlights three distinct monetary policy phases, and underscores the singular role of inflation (not systemic risk from rising indebtedness) as a driving factor for Riksbank policy. Since 2015, the Riksbank has maintained interest rates well below what a Taylor rule approach would suggest, owing to the desire to raise inflation expectations and Sweden’s high trade exposure to the euro area. This highlights strong similarities between the experience of Sweden and Canada: both countries are in the orbit of a major neighboring central bank, which has created serious distortions in both economies. Given the extent of the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, especially in Europe, our assessment of the Riksbank’s reaction function suggests the odds appear to be high that the repo rate will move back into negative territory at some point this year (despite their reluctance to do so). Over the near-term, Swedish policy easing suggests that investors should avoid the krona versus both the US dollar and euro. Over a medium-term time horizon, one implication of a return to negative interest rates is that Swedish house price appreciation is likely to trend higher once the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic ends, potentially to the benefit of Swedish consumer durable and apparel stocks. Finally, over the long-term, Sweden is very likely to face a period of domestic economic stagnation stemming from the extraordinary rise in private sector debt that has built up over the past two decades. The co-ordinated global response to the pandemic suggests that this is not the end of Sweden’s debt supercycle, but timing the transition from reflation to stagnation will be of crucial importance for investors exposed to the domestic Swedish economy over the coming few years. Feature One of the worrying legacies of the global financial crisis has been a substantial buildup in private sector debt in many economies around the world. This has most famously occurred in China, but private indebtedness is also very high in many developed economies. Among advanced countries, Sweden stands out as being particularly exposed to elevated private sector debt. Chart I-1 highlights that Sweden’s private sector debt-to-GDP ratio has ballooned to a massive 250% of GDP over the past 15 years, from a starting point of roughly average indebtedness. Chart I-1Sweden's Extremely Indebted Private Sector In this report we explore why Sweden has seen an explosion in private sector debt-to-GDP, and highlight that Sweden’s experience can be compared closely with that of Canada – both countries are in the orbit of a major neighboring central bank, which has created distortions in each economy. We also summarize what this implies for Riksbank policy, and what investment recommendations can be drawn from our analysis. We conclude that while the Riksbank is clearly reluctant to cut the repo rate after having just existed its negative interest rate position last year, it appears likely that they will forced to do so unless the negative economic impact from the COVID-19 pandemic abates very soon. Over the short-term, this suggests that investors should avoid the Swedish krona, versus either the US dollar or the euro. Why has Sweden seen such an explosion in private-sector debt? Over the medium-term, easy Riksbank policy and the probable absence of any additional macroprudential measures is likely to spur a renewed increase in Swedish house prices and household debt, which will likely benefit consumer durables and apparel stocks relative to the broad Swedish equity market.  But this will reinforce Sweden’s existing credit bubble, and similar to Canada will set the stage for domestic economic stagnation over the very long-term. Riksbank Policy and Sweden’s Private Sector Debt: A Tale Of Three Phases Much of the investor attention on Sweden's extremely high private sector debt load has occurred following the global financial crisis. But Chart I-1 clearly highlights that the process of private sector leveraging began in 2004, arguing that the Riksbank’s easy monetary policy stance following the global financial crisis is not the only cause of Sweden’s extremely elevated private debt-to-GDP ratio. In a previous Special Report for our Global Investment Strategy service,1 we investigated a similar experience in Canada and used a simple Taylor rule approach to show that the Bank of Canada’s decision to maintain interest rates below equilibrium levels for nearly two decades has contributed to a substantial buildup in private sector leverage. A similar approach for Sweden highlights similar conclusions, albeit with some complications: Chart I-2 shows our Taylor rule estimate for Sweden alongside the policy rate, and shows the deviation from the rule in the second panel. Chart I-2Since 2000, Sweden Has Had Three Distinct Monetary Policy Phases Compared with Canada’s experience, which has maintained too-low interest rates consistently for the past 20 years, Chart I-2 shows that the stance of Sweden’s monetary policy since 2000 falls into three distinct phases: Persistently easy policy from 2000 to 2008 A period of less easy and then relatively tight policy from 2009 to early-2014 A period of extremely easy policy from 2015 until today. The first phase noted above closely resembles the experience of Canada: policymakers in both countries simply kept interest rates too low during the last global economic expansion. In the second phase, the stance of monetary policy in Sweden became progressively less easy: the Taylor rule collapsed in 2009/2010, and trended lower again during the euro area sovereign debt crisis as well as its aftermath. In fact, Chart I-2 suggests that Sweden’s monetary policy stance was outrightly tight from 2012-2014, and in early-2014 the Taylor rule recommended negative policy rates while the actual policy rate was above 1%. In the third phase, the Riksbank appears to have overcompensated for the second phase of relatively less easy and eventually tight monetary policy. The Riksbank pushed policy rates into negative territory in late-2014, as had been recommended by the Taylor rule a year before, at a time when the rule was rising sharply. Roughly 2/3rds of the rise in the rule from early-2014 to late-2018 occurred due to the significant rise in Swedish inflation, with the rest due to a rise in Sweden’s output gap – which turned positive in late-2016 according to the OECD (Chart I-3). It is this third phase, featuring a massive and glaring gap between Swedish policy rates and a monetary policy rule that correctly recommended easy policy from 2010 – 2014, that has attracted global investor attention over the past few years. But Chart I-4 presents Sweden’s Taylor rule gap alongside its private sector debt-to-GDP ratio, and highlights that over 80% of the rise in the latter since 2000 actually occurred in the first phase described above – a period of persistently easy monetary policy as defined by our Taylor rule approach. The behavior of Sweden’s private sector debt-to-GDP ratio in the second and third phases also seems to validate our approach, as gearing essentially stopped during the second phase and restarted in the third phase. Chart I-3Since 2014, Sweden’s Rising Taylor Rule Has Been Driven Mostly By Inflation Chart I-4Sweden’s Monetary Policy Phases Explain Its Private Sector Leveraging The Riksbank: “Talk To Us About Inflation, Not Debt” Chart I-5During Phase 2, Households Clearly Took Advantage Of Low Mortgage Rates It is crucial to understand the motivations of Sweden’s central bank during each of these phases in order to be able to forecast the likelihood of a return to negative interest rates this year, as well as the Riksbank’s likely policy response once the COVID-19 pandemic subsides. In the first monetary policy phase that we have described, Sweden was not the only country to maintain persistently easy monetary policy. Given the relative scarcity of private sector deleveraging events in the post-war era, most policy makers, academic economists, and market participants were regrettably unconcerned about rising private sector indebtedness during this period, and only came to understand the consequences during the crisis and its aftermath. Most advanced economies leveraged during the first of Sweden’s monetary policy phases, and Sweden really only stands out as a major outlier from 2007 – 2009 when nearly 60% of the country’s total 2000-2019 private sector leveraging occurred (most of which, in turn, occurred before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008). In essence, by the time that Swedish policymakers were given a vivid and painful demonstration of the dangers of elevated private sector debt, it was too late to prevent most of the increase in debt-to-GDP that is facing the country today. In the second phase of Sweden's modern monetary policy, our Taylor rule framework highlights that the Riksbank largely acted as appropriate. One complication, however, is the difference in the leverage trend between Sweden's nonfinancial corporate and household sectors. Chart I-5 clearly highlights that Sweden's household sector took advantage of low interest rates during the country’s second monetary policy phase. Household sector leveraging began to rise again starting in late-2011, whereas it was completely absent for the corporate sector during the period. A crucial reason why the Riksbank ignored this renewed household sector leveraging is also part of the reason that it has maintained extremely low policy rates in the third phase noted above. The Riksbank’s monetary policy strategy, which is published in every monetary policy report, includes the following: “According to the Sveriges Riksbank Act, the Riksbank’s tasks also include promoting a safe and efficient payment system. Risks linked to developments in the financial markets are taken into account in the monetary decisions. With regard to preventing an unbalanced development of asset prices and indebtedness however, well-functioning regulation and effective supervision play a central role. Monetary policy only acts as a compliment to these.” In other words, the Riksbank has been very clear that preventing excessive leveraging is not its responsibility, and that the job ultimately falls to the Swedish government. But if the Taylor rule was recommending meaningfully higher interest rates during phase 3, then why did the Riksbank continue to lower interest rates into negative territory until last year? In our view, their behavior can be explained by the confluence of three factors: 1. Sweden’s deflation scare in 2014: Sweden’s underlying inflation rate had been trending lower for four years by the time that it dipped briefly into negative territory in March 2014. By this point, the Riksbank appears to have become increasingly concerned about inflation expectations rather than the trend in actual inflation. Chart I-6 presents Sweden’s underlying inflation rate and an adaptive-expectations based estimate of inflation expectations alongside the repo rate, and shows that inflection points in the repo rate match inflection points in expectations. Specifically, the repo rate continued to fall until inflation expectations stabilized in early-2016, and the Riksbank did not raise the repo rate until expectations crossed above 1.5%, a level that was reasonably close to the central bank’s 2% target. Chart I-6During Phase 3, The Riksbank Focused On Low Inflation Expectations 2. Sweden’s high trade sensitivity: Chart I-7 highlights that Sweden’s economy, like Canada and other Scandinavian countries, is highly exposed to exports to top trading partners. The euro area accounts for a large portion of Sweden’s exports, and Chart I-8 highlights that nominal euro area imports from Sweden remained very weak from 2012-2016. In addition, Sweden’s import sensitivity is also very high, with total imports of goods and services accounting for over 40% of Sweden’s GDP. By our calculations, roughly 2/3rds of Swedish imports are for domestic consumption,2 and Chart I-9 highlights how closely (inversely) correlated imported consumer and capital goods prices are to Sweden’s trade-weighted currency index. By pushing the repo rate into negative territory, the Riksbank reinforced rising inflation expectations by supporting exports and importing inflation from its trading partners via a weaker krona. Chart I-7Sweden, Like Other Small DM Countries, Are Highly Exposed To Trade Chart I-8Euro Area Demand For Swedish Goods Remained Weak For Several Years Chart I-9To 'Import' Inflation, The Riksbank Had To Weaken The Krona 3. The euro area’s persistently weak inflation and extremely easy monetary policy: While this is related to Sweden's overall trade sensitivity, the fact that the euro area had to combat persistently weak inflation with negative interest rates and asset purchases from late-2014 to late-2018 has had a particularly strong impact on Riksbank policy given the latter’s goal of boosting Swedish inflation via higher import prices. Chart I-10 highlights the strong link between the SEK-EUR exchange rate and the real interest rate differential between the two countries, and in particular shows that the Riksbank had to lower the differential into negative territory in order to bring the krona below “normal” levels (defined here as the average of the past global economic expansion). When faced with a real euro area policy rate of roughly -1.5% during the period (Chart I-11), the only way to achieve a negative real rate differential was to maintain the repo rate at an extremely low level as Swedish inflation rose. Chart I-10To Weaken The ##br##Krona... Chart I-11…Deeply Negative Real Policy Rates Were Required Where Next For The Repo Rate? In February 2019 the Riksbank was forecasting that the repo rate would return into positive territory by the end of this year, and would rise as high as 80 basis points by mid-2022. They downgraded this assessment in April, and again in October, highlighting that they expected a 0% repo rate for essentially the entire three-year forecast period. In other words, the Riksbank had been moving in a dovish direction even before the COVID-19 pandemic began. Prior to the outbreak, we would have been inclined to argue that the Riksbank’s forecast of a 0% repo rate beyond 2020 was suspect, given the budding recovery in global growth. Chart I-12 highlights that the global PMI had been improving for several months prior to the outbreak, and the Swedish PMI and consumer confidence index had recently rebounded sharply. A negative repo rate was essential to “import” inflation. But, given the extent of the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, especially in Europe, and our description of the Riksbank mandate and reaction function, the odds appear to be high that the repo rate will move back into negative territory at some point this year. Besides the very negative direct impact to global trade from the pandemic, Chart I-13 highlights that Swedish inflation is now falling, and that our measure of inflation expectations has now peaked. Chart I-12Swedish Economic Momentum Was Building Prior To The Pandemic... Char I-13...But Inflation Is Falling And The Unemployment Rate Is Rising In addition, the Swedish unemployment rate has been trending higher since early-2018 (Chart I-13, second panel), in response to several factors: a shock to household wealth in late-2015/early-2016 due to sharply falling equity prices, a meaningful decline in house prices driven by newly introduced macroprudential policies, and a sharp albeit seemingly one-off decline in the contribution to Swedish economic growth from government expenditure (Chart I-14). These trends would have likely reversed at some point this year given the building economic momentum that was evident in January and early-February, but it is now clear that the pandemic will more than offset the budding improvement in economic activity. Chart I-14Swedish Policymakers Will Have To Reverse The Factors That Caused The Pre-Pandemic Slowdow Over the past week the Riksbank has announced two policies: it will provide cheap loans to the country’s banks (500 billion SEK) to bolster credit supply to Swedish small & medium-sized enterprises, and it will increase its asset purchase program by 300 billion SEK. The Riksbank is clearly reluctant to cut the repo rate after having just existed its negative interest rate position last year, and has argued that strong liquidity support and stepped up asset purchases are more likely to be effective measures in the current environment. However, Charts I-10 & I-11 underscored the link between real interest rate differentials and the currency, and the Riksbank will risk having the krona appreciate versus the euro and other currencies if inflation continues to fall and the policy rate is kept unchanged. Chart I-15 shows that market participants have already begun to price in cuts to the repo rate, and our sense is that the Riksbank will be forced to act in a way that is consistent with the market’s view. Chart I-15The Market Expects The Riksbank To Return To Negative Interest Rates. We Agree. Investment Conclusions Over a cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) time horizon, the Swedish krona is the asset with the clearest link to our discussion of Riksbank policy, and investors should recognize that the krona call is now a binary one based on the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is one of the cheapest currencies in the G10 space, but foreign exchange markets have recently ignored fundamentals such as interest rate differentials and valuation. This is particularly true in the face of a spike in US dollar cross-currency basis swaps, which have started to send the dollar higher even against the safe haven currencies. In such an a environment, selling pressure could continue to push SEK lower, especially if the Riksbank is pushed to reduce the repo rate sooner rather than later. The SEK is one of the most procyclical currencies in the FX space, suggesting that investors should stand aside until markets stabilize (Chart I-16). Right now, the Swedish krona is the clearest play on Riksbank policy. As for the EUR/SEK cross, any renewed ECB stimulus suggests that Sweden will act accordingly to prevent the SEK from appreciating too far, too fast. EUR/SEK will top out after global growth is in an eventual upswing, and the Riskbank has eased policy further. Over the medium-term time horizon, one implication of a return to negative interest rates is that Swedish house price appreciation is likely to trend higher once the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic ends. House prices will likely decelerate in the near term given the shock to household wealth from falling equity prices, but we showed in Chart I-5 that Sweden’s household sector ultimately took advantage of low interest rates during Sweden’s second monetary policy phase. We expect a similar dynamic to unfold beyond the coming 6-9 months, and Chart I-17 highlights that overweighting Swedish consumer durable and apparel stocks within the overall Swedish equity market is likely the best way to eventually play a resumption of household leveraging and rising house prices. Chart I-16Avoid Krona Exposure ##br##For Now Chart I-17Swedish Consumer Durables & Apparel Stocks Linked To Domestic, Not Global, Demand With the exception of a selloff in 2013, the relative performance of the industry group has closely correlated with house price appreciation, and is now deeply oversold. The companies included the industry group earn a significant portion of their revenue from global sales, but the close correlation of relative performance with Swedish house prices and limited correlation with the global PMI suggests that domestic economic performance matter in driving returns for these stocks (Chart I-17, bottom panel). We are not yet prepared to recommend a long relative position favoring this industry group, but we are likely to view signs of policy traction and a relative performance breakout as a good entry point. Finally, the key long-term implication of our research is that Sweden will at some point likely face a period of stagnation stemming from the extraordinary rise in private sector debt that has built up over the past two decades. While regulators had begun to combat excessive debt with macroprudential measures, further measures to restrict household sector debt are extremely unlikely to occur until after another substantial reacceleration in Swedish house prices and another nontrivial rise in household sector leverage. This will be cyclically positive for Sweden coming out of the pandemic, but will ultimately make Sweden’s underlying debt problem meaningfully worse. Macroprudential control of rising nonfinancial corporate debt has not and is not likely to occur, and no regulatory control measure will be able to significantly ease the existing debt burden facing the private sector. Chart I-18 highlights that while Sweden’s private sector debt service ratio (DSR) is not the highest in the world, is it extremely elevated compared to other important DM countries such as the US, UK, Japan, and core euro area. Several other countries with higher private sector DSRs, such as Canada and Hong Kong, are also at serious risk of long-term stagnation. Chart I-18Swedish Domestic Economic Stagnation Is A 'When', Not An 'If' We have not yet identified a specific list of assets that will be negatively impacted by Swedish domestic economic stagnation over the longer term. Our European Investment Strategy service recently argued that Swedish stocks are attractive over the very long term versus Swedish bonds, based on valuations and the fact that the Swedish equity market as a whole is heavily driven by the global business cycle. We plan on revisiting the question of which equity sectors are most vulnerable to domestic stagnation in a future report, as the onset of stagnation draws nearer. As we noted in our report on Canada,3 it is difficult to identify precisely when Sweden’s high debt load will meaningfully and sustainably impact Swedish economic activity and related equity sectors. The acute shock to global activity from the COVID-19 pandemic is an obvious potential trigger, but the fact that policymakers around the world are responding forcefully to the pandemic suggests that this is not the end of Sweden’s debt supercycle. In this regard, the prospect of globally co-ordinated fiscal spending is especially significant. Our best guess is that Sweden’s true reckoning will come once US and global activity contracts for conventional reasons, instigated by tight monetary policy to control rising and above-target inflation. This may mean that Sweden will avoid a balance sheet recession for some time, but investors exposed to domestically-linked Swedish financial assets should take heed that the eventual consequences of such an event are likely to grow in magnitude the longer it takes to arrive. In short, beyond the acute nearer-term impact of the pandemic, Sweden is likely to experience short-term gain for long-term pain. The short- to medium-term focus of investors should be on the former, but with full recognition that the latter will eventually occur. Timing the transition between these two states will be of crucial importance for investors exposed to the domestic Swedish economy over the coming few years. Stay tuned!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2 We assume that all services imports are consumed domestically. Among goods exports, we assume domestic consumption of all imports of food & live animals, beverages & tobacco, mineral fuels, lubricants, and related materials, miscellaneous manufactured articles, road vehicles, and other goods. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Policy Responses: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a full-blown global crisis and recession. Governments and central bankers worldwide are now responding with aggressive monetary easing and fiscal stimulus. Markets will not respond positively to such stimulus, however, until there is some visibility on the true depth, and duration, of the economic downturn. Fixed Income Strategy: With a global recession now a certainty, bond yields will remain under downward pressure and credit spreads should widen further. Given how far yields have already fallen, we recommend emphasizing country and credit allocation in global bond portfolios, while keeping overall duration exposure around benchmark levels. Model Portfolio Changes: Following up on our tactical changes last week, we continue to recommend overweighting government debt versus spread product. Specifically, overweighting US & Canadian government bonds versus Japan and core Europe, and underweighting US high-yield and all euro area and EM credit. Feature In stunning fashion, the sudden stop in the global economy due to the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a rapid return to crisis-era monetary and fiscal policies. The battle has now shifted to trying to fill the massive hole in global private sector demand left by efforts to contain the spread of the virus. It is unlikely that lower interest rates and more quantitative easing can mitigate the negative growth effects from travel bans, closing of bars and restaurants, and full scale lockdowns of cities. Fiscal policy, combined with efforts to boost market liquidity and ease the coming collapse of cash flows for the majority of global businesses, are the only plausible options remaining. It is unlikely that lower interest rates and more quantitative easing can mitigate the negative growth effects from travel bans, closing of bars and restaurants, and full scale lockdowns of cities. While the speed of these dramatic policy moves is unprecedented, the reason for them is obvious. Plunging equities and surging corporate bond credit spreads are signaling a global recession, but one of uncertain depth and duration given the uncertainties surrounding the spread of COVID-19 (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekCan Crisis-Era Monetary Policies Be Effective During A Pandemic? Chart 2Risk Assets Will Not Bottom Until New COVID-19 Cases Ex-China Peak The ability for policymakers to calibrate stimulus measures is pure guesswork at this point. The same thing goes for investors who see zero visibility on global growth, with the full extent of the virus yet to be felt in large economies like the United States and Germany – even as new cases in China, where the epidemic began, approach zero. The response from central bankers has been swift and bold – rapid rate cuts, increased liquidity programs for bank funding and increased asset purchases. The fact that global financial markets have remained volatile, even after what is a clear coordinated effort from policymakers, highlights how the unique threats to growth from the COVID-19 pandemic may be beyond fighting with traditional demand-side stimulus measures. We continue to recommend a cautious near-term investment stance, particular with regards to corporate bond exposure, until there is clear evidence that the growth rate of new COVID-19 cases outside China has peaked (Chart 2). Policymakers Throw The Kitchen Sink At The Problem The market moves and policy announcements have come fast and furious this past week, from virtually all major economies. We summarize some of the moves below: United States The Fed cut rates by -100bps in a Sunday night emergency move, taking the funds rate back to the effective lower bound of 0% - 0.25%. Importantly, Fed Chair Powell made it clear at his press conference that negative rates are not on the table, suggesting that we may have seen the last of the rate cuts for this cycle. A new round of quantitative easing (QE) was also announced, with purchases of $500 billion of Treasury securities and $200 billion of agency MBS that will occur in the “coming months”; Powell hinted that those amounts could be increased, if necessary (Chart 3). The MBS purchases are a clear effort to help bring down mortgage rates, which have not declined anywhere near as rapidly as US Treasury yields during the market rout (bottom panel). The Fed also cut the discount window rate – the rate at which banks can borrow from the Fed for periods of up to 90 days – by -150bps, bringing it down to 0.25%. The Fed said it is “encouraging banks to use their capital and liquidity buffers” – essentially telling banks to hold less cash for regulatory purposes. The Fed also reduced the rate on its US dollar swap lines with other central banks. The new rate is OIS +25bps. Coming on top of the massive increase in existing repo lines last week, the Fed is attempting to ensure that banks, both in the US and globally, that need USD funding have more liquidity available to support lending. Already, there are signs of worsening liquidity in the bank funding markets, like widening FRA-OIS spreads, but also evidence of illiquidity in financial markets like wide bid-ask spreads on longer-maturity US Treasuries and the growing basis between high-yield bonds and equivalent credit default swaps (Chart 4). Chart 3A Return To Fed QE Chart 4Market Liquidity Issues Forced The Fed's Hand Turning to fiscal policy, the full response of the Trump administration is still being formed, but a major $850bn spending package has been proposed that would provide tax relief for American households and businesses while also including a $50bn bailout of the US airline industry. This comes on top of previously announced plans to offer free testing for the virus, paid sick leave, business tax credits and a temporary suspension of student loan interest payments. Chart 5The ECB Has Limited Policy Options Euro Area The European Central Bank (ECB) unexpectedly made no changes to policy interest rates last week. It opted instead to increase asset purchases by €120bn until the end of 2020 (both for government bonds and investment grade corporates), while introducing more long-term refinancing operations (LTROs) to “provide a bridge” to the targeted LTRO (TLTRO-3) that is set to begin in June. The terms of TLTRO-3 were improved, as well; banks that accessed the liquidity to maintain existing lending could do so at a rate up to -25bps below the current ECB deposit rate of -0.5%, for up to 50% of the existing stock of bank loans. The ECB obviously had to do something, given the coordinated nature of the global monetary policy response to COVID-19. Yet the decisions taken show that the ECB is much more limited in its ability to ease policy further, with interest rates already negative, asset purchases approaching self-imposed country limits and, most worryingly, inflation expectations falling to fresh lows (Chart 5). The bigger responses to date have come on the fiscal front, with stimulus packages proposed by France (€45bn), Italy (€25bn), Spain (€3bn) and the European Commission (€37bn). The biggest news, however, came from Germany which has offered affected businesses tax breaks and cheap loans through the state development bank, KfW – the latter with an planned upper limit of €550bn (and with the German government assuming a greater share of risk on those new KfW loans). The German government has also vaguely promised to temporarily suspend its so-called “debt brake” to allow deficit financing of virus-related stimulus programs, if necessary. Other Countries The Bank of England cut interest rates by -50bps last week, while also lowering capital requirements for UK banks by allowing use of counter-cyclical buffers for lending. On the fiscal side, a £30bn package was introduced last week that included a tax cut for retailers, cash grants to small business, sick pay for those with COVID-19 and extended unemployment benefits. The Bank of Japan held an emergency meeting this past Sunday night, announcing no changes in policy rates but doubling the size of its ETF purchase program to $56 billion a year to $112 billion, while also increasing purchases of corporate bonds and commercial paper. The central bank also announced a new program of 0% interest loans to increase lending to businesses hurt by the virus. The Bank of Canada delivered an emergency -50bps cut in its policy rate last Friday, coming soon after the -50bp reduction from the previous week. The central bank also introduced operations to boost the liquidity of Canadian financial markets. The Canadian government also announced a fiscal package of up to C$20bn, including increased money for the state business funding agencies. The Reserve Bank of Australia did not cut its Cash Rate last week, which was already at a record-low 0.5%. It did, however, signal that it would begin a quantitative easing program for the first time, and introduce Fed-like repo operations, to provide more liquidity to the economy and local financial markets. The Australian government has also announced A$17bn of fiscal stimulus. Fiscal packages have also been introduced in New Zealand (where the Reserve Bank of New Zealand just cut its policy rate by -75bps), Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, and South Korea. To date, China has leaned more on monetary and liquidity measures – lowering interest rates and cutting reserve requirements – rather than a big fiscal stimulus package. Will all these policy measures be enough to offset the hit to global growth from COVID-19 and help stabilize financial markets? It is certainly a good start, particularly in countries with low government and deficit levels that have the fiscal space for even more stimulus, like Germany, Australia and Canada (Chart 6). Given these competing forces of global recession and monetary policy exhaustion on one side, but with increasingly more expansive fiscal policy on the other, we recommend a neutral (at benchmark) stance on overall global duration exposure on both a tactical and strategic basis. The ability to calibrate the necessary policy response is impossible to assess without knowing the full impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy – including the size of related job losses and corporate defaults/bankruptcies. Policymakers are likely to listen to the combined message of financial markets – equity prices, credit spreads and government bond yields. The low level of yields and flat yield curves, despite near-0% policy rates across the developed world (Chart 7), suggests that investors see monetary policy as “tapped out”, leaving fiscal stimulus as the only way to fight the economic war against COVID-19. Chart 6At Global ZIRP, The Policy Focus Shifts To Fiscal Chart 7Are Bond Yields Discounting A Global Liquidity Trap? Given these competing forces of global recession and monetary policy exhaustion on one side, but with increasingly more expansive fiscal policy on the other, we recommend a neutral (at benchmark) stance on overall global duration exposure on both a tactical and strategic basis. Bottom Line: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a full-blown global crisis and recession. Governments and central bankers worldwide are now responding with aggressive monetary easing and fiscal stimulus. Markets will not respond positively to such stimulus, however, until there is some visibility on the true depth, and duration, of the economic downturn. Corporate Bonds In The US & Europe – Stay Tactically Defensive Chart 8This Crisis Is Different Than 2008 The COVID-19 global market rout has generated levels of market volatility not seen since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The US VIX index of option-implied equity volatility spiked to a high of 84, while the equivalent German VDAX measure reached a shocking high of 93. Equity valuations in both the US and Europe remain much higher on a forward price/earnings ratio basis compared to the troughs seen in 2008, even after the COVID-19 bear market. Yet even though volatility has returned to crisis-era extremes, and corporate credit has sold off hard in both the US and Europe, credit spreads remain well below the 2008 highs (Chart 8). Nonetheless, the credit selloff seen over the past few weeks has still been intense. Both investment grade and high-yield spreads have blown out, and across all credit tiers in both the US (Chart 9) and euro area (Chart 10). Even the highest-rated segments of the corporate bond universe have seen spreads explode, with AAA-rated investment grade spreads having doubled in both the US and Europe. Chart 9Broad-Based Spread Widening For Both Investment Grade... Chart 10...And High-Yield With the COVID-19 pandemic tipping the global economy into recession, it is not clear that the spread widening seen to date has been enough to compensate for the typical surge in downgrades and defaults seen during recessions – even though spreads do look wide on a duration-adjusted basis. With the COVID-19 pandemic tipping the global economy into recession, it is not clear that the spread widening seen to date has been enough to compensate for the typical surge in downgrades and defaults seen during recessions – even though spreads do look wide on a duration-adjusted basis.  One of our favorite metrics to value corporate bonds is to look at option-adjusted spreads, adjusted for interest rate duration risk. We call this the 12-month breakeven spread, as it measures the amount of spread widening over one year that would leave corporate bond returns equal to those of duration-matched US Treasuries. We then look at the percentile rankings of those breakeven spreads versus their history as one indicator of corporate bond value. Chart 11US Corporates Look Cheaper On A Duration-Adjusted Basis For the US, the 12-month breakeven spreads for the overall Bloomberg Barclays investment grade and high-yield indices are in the 82nd and 97th percentiles, respectively (Chart 11). This suggests that the latest credit selloff has made corporate debt quite cheap, although only looking through the prism of spread risk rather than potential default losses. Another of our preferred valuation metrics for high-yield debt is the duration-adjusted spread, or the high-yield index option-adjusted spread minus default losses. We then look at that default-adjusted spread versus its long-run average (+250bps) as a measure of high-yield value. To assess the current level of spreads, we use a one-year ahead forecast of the expected default rate using our own macro model. Over the past 12 months, the high-yield default rate was 4.5% and our macro model is currently calling for a rise to 6.2%. That estimate, however, does not yet include the certain hit to corporate profits from the COVID-19 recession. By way of comparison, the default rate peaked at 11.2% during the 2001/02 default cycle and at 14.6% during the 2008 financial crisis. In Chart 12, we show the historical default rate, our macro model for the default rate, and the history of the default-adjusted spread. We also show what the default-adjusted spread would look like in four different scenarios for the default rate over the next 12 months: 6%, 9%, 11% and 15%. The placement of these numbers in the bottom panel of Chart 12 indicates where the Default-Adjusted Spread will be if each scenario is realized. Chart 12US High-Yield Is Not Cheap On A Default-Adjusted Basis Right now, our expectation is that there will be a virus driven US recession, but it will be shorter in magnitude than past recessions; this suggests a peak default rate closer to 9%. Such a scenario would still be consistent with a positive default-adjusted spread and likely positive excess returns for US high-yield relative to US Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. However, if a default rate similar to that seen during past recessions (11% or 15%) is realized, that would lead to a negative default-adjusted spread. Adding up both pieces of our valuation framework suggests that, while US high-yield spreads offer value on a duration-adjusted basis, spreads do not compensate enough for potential default losses if the US recession lasts longer than we expect. Thus, we recommend a tactical underweight position in US high-yield until we see better visibility on the severity, and duration, of the US recession. Adding up both pieces of our valuation framework suggests that, while US high-yield spreads offer value on a duration-adjusted basis, spreads do not compensate enough for potential default losses if the US recession lasts longer than we expect.  As for euro area corporates, spreads for both investment grade and high-yield do look relatively wide on a breakeven spread basis, although less so than US credit (Chart 13). However, with the World Health Organization declaring Europe as the new epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, the harsh containment measures seen in Italy, Germany, France and elsewhere – coming from a starting point of weak overall economic growth – suggest that euro area spreads need to be wider to fully reflect downgrade and default risks. Chart 13Euro Area Corporates Look A Bit Cheaper On A Duration-Adjusted Basis We recommend a tactical underweight allocation to both euro area corporate debt and Italian sovereign debt, as spreads have room to reprice wider to reflect a deeper recession (Chart 14). Chart 14Stay Underweight Euro Area Spread Product Bottom Line: Corporate bond spreads on both sides of the Atlantic discount a sharp economic slowdown, but the odds of a deeper recession – and more spread widening - are greater in Europe relative to the US. A Quick Note On Recent Changes To Our Model Bond Portfolio In last week’s report, we made several adjustments to our model bond portfolio recommended allocations on a tactical (0-6 months) basis.1 Specifically, we downgraded our overall recommended exposure to global spread product to underweight, while increasing the overall allocation to government debt to overweight. The specific changes made to the model bond portfolio are presented in tables on pages 14 & 15. Within the country allocation of the government bond side of the portfolio, we upgraded US and Canada (markets more sensitive to changes in global bond yields, and with central banks that still had room to ease policy) to overweight, while downgrading core Europe to underweight and Japan to maximum underweight (both markets less sensitive to global yields and with no room to cut rates). On the credit side of the portfolio, we downgraded US high-yield to underweight (with a 0% allocation to Caa-rated debt), while also downgrading euro area investment grade and high-yield debt to underweight. We also lowered allocations to emerging market USD denominated debt, both sovereign and corporate, to underweight. We left the allocation to US investment grade debt at neutral, as the other reductions left our overall spread product allocation at the desired level (35% versus the 43% spread product weighting in our custom benchmark portfolio index). In terms of the specific weightings, the portfolio is now +11% overweight US fixed income versus the benchmark, coming most through US Treasury exposure. The portfolio is now -7% underweight euro area versus the benchmark, equally thorough government bond and corporate debt exposure. The portfolio is now also has a -7% weight in Japan versus the benchmark, entirely from government bonds. Note that these weightings represent a tactical allocation only, as we are recommending a defensive stance on spread product exposure given the near-term uncertainties over COVID-19 and global growth. On a strategic (6-12 months) horizon, however, we are neutral overall spread product exposure versus government bonds. Corporate bond spreads already discount a sharp economic slowdown and some increase in defaults. However, the rapid shift to aggressive monetary and fiscal easing by global policymakers to combat the virus will likely limit the duration and, potentially, the severity of the global slowdown currently discounted in wide credit spreads.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Train Is Empty", dated March 10, 2020, available at gfis.bcarsearch.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

Highlights Duration: We are not prepared to say that bond yields have troughed, even with the fed funds rate now back to the zero bound. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. We do not rule out longer-maturity Treasury yields falling to 0% during the next couple of months, but negative bond yields in the US are not possible. TIPS: Current low TIPS breakeven inflation rates signal a rare buying opportunity. Though price swings will be volatile for the next few months, investors with horizons of 1-year or longer would be well advised to go long TIPS versus equivalent-maturity nominal Treasuries. Corporate Bonds: Corporate spreads are widening rapidly but still don’t offer above-average compensation if we adjust for likely future default scenarios. We will wait for a better entry point before recommending a shift back to overweight. Feature Does The Fed’s Bazooka Signal The Bottom In Yields? Chart 1Back To The Zero-Lower-Bound In response to liquidity stresses witnessed in Treasury and MBS markets last week, the Fed decided to move this month’s FOMC meeting up to Sunday afternoon. It then took the opportunity to roll out a massive amount of easing. First the facts: The Fed cut the policy rate by 100 bps, back to the effective lower bound of 0% - 0.25%. Chair Powell also made it clear at his press conference that negative rates are not on the table. The Fed announced purchases of at least $500 billion of Treasury securities and $200 billion of agency MBS that will occur in the “coming months.” The Fed cut the discount window rate – the rate at which banks can borrow from the Fed for periods of up to 90 days – by 150 bps, bringing it down to 0.25%. The Fed said it is “encouraging banks to use their capital and liquidity buffers” (more on this below). The Fed also reduced the rate on its US dollar swap lines with other central banks. The new rate is OIS + 25 bps. The first major question for bond investors is whether this move will mark the bottom in yields (Chart 1). We aren’t so sure. As we write this on Monday morning the 2-year yield is 0.35%, down 14 bps from Friday’s close and the 10-year yield is 0.79%, down 15 bps from Friday. Obviously, further rate cuts won’t be the catalyst for lower bond yields, but investors can still push long-dated yields down if they start to price-in a longer period of time at the zero bound. In contrast, long-dated bond yields will only move up if we start to price-in an eventual economic recovery and exit from zero-bound rate policy. The fact that S&P futures went limit down immediately after the Fed’s big announcement suggests we aren’t at that point yet. Further rate cuts won’t be the catalyst for lower bond yields, but investors can still push long-dated yields down if they start to price-in a longer period of time at the zero bound. In last week’s report we introduced four criteria to monitor to decide when to call the trough in bond yields.1 Even with the Fed’s move back to zero, these four factors remain the most important things to watch. First, we want to see signs that the COVID-19 pandemic is becoming contained. That is, we want to see the daily number of new cases fall close to zero. We are still far away from that point (Chart 2), but evidence from China shows that containment is possible if the rest of the world follows a similar roadmap. Second, we want to see evidence of improving global growth, particularly in China. We showed last week how the Global and Chinese Manufacturing PMIs plunged in February. Since then, higher frequency global growth indicators – such as the performance of cyclical equities over defensives and the CRB Raw Industrials index – have not recovered at all (Chart 3). With very few new COVID cases in China and a large amount of stimulus on the way, we expect Chinese growth indicators to rebound in the coming months. Chart 2Tracking ##br##COVID-19 Chart 3Waiting For A Stronger Global Growth & Weaker US Growth Third, we want to see some bad economic data coming out of the US. As of today, the US Economic Surprise Index is a robust +74 and last week’s initial jobless claims and Consumer Sentiment releases were healthy (Chart 3, bottom 2 panels). We know the weak economic data are coming, but they haven’t arrived yet. Until they do, there is an elevated risk of another downleg in bond yields. We expect the time to call the bottom in bond yields will be when the US data are very weak and the Global and Chinese data are improving. Investors will use the global rebound as a roadmap for the US and start to push yields higher. Finally, we would like to see signals from some technical trading rules that have good track records of calling bottoms in bond yields. The technical rules we examined last week are all based on identifying periods when bond market sentiment is extremely bullish and when bond yield momentum hooks up. Chart 4Technical Trading Rules So far, none of the technical rules we identified have been triggered. Our Composite Technical Indicator remains in deeply “overbought” territory (Chart 4), but to generate a sell signal we also need one of our momentum measures to turn positive (Chart 4, bottom 3 panels). This hasn’t happened yet. All in all, none of our four criteria have been met. We are therefore inclined to think that it is too soon to call the bottom in bond yields. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. Negative Yields In The US? We think it’s entirely possible that the 10-year Treasury yield could fall as low as 0% during the next couple of months. With the front-end of the curve already pinned at zero, any further market panic will be disproportionately felt at the long-end, and another spate of bad news could easily push the 10-year yield down to 0%. However, if the 10-year yield were to fall to 0%, we would declare that the trough in yields. In other words, negative bond yields will not occur in the US. Why is this the case? We can think of the 10-year Treasury yield as the market’s expected average fed funds rate for the next decade.2 That being the case, the 10-year yield would only turn negative if the market believed that the Federal Reserve was willing to take the policy rate below zero. On Sunday, Chair Powell was adamant that negative interest rates won’t be considered. He said that any further easing would take the form of forward guidance and asset purchases. The strongest form of that would involve caps on intermediate- and/or long-maturity bond yields. Please note that Powell didn’t mention yield caps specifically on Sunday, this is our inference based on past Fed communications. But the main point is that negative bond yields are a policy choice, one that the Federal Reserve is not inclined to make any time soon. It’s highly notable that no country without a negative policy rate has seen negative bond yields further out the curve. One result of the Fed’s “lower for longer” bias is that, coming out of the current crisis, we would expect the equity market to bottom and corporate bond spreads to peak before Treasury yields move higher.  Another factor that will weigh on how low long-end Treasury yields fall is whether the market thinks that the Fed views its recent rate cut as an “emergency measure” that will be quickly reversed when the COVID crisis passes, or as a more long-lasting policy change. The Fed was deliberately vague on this question in its statement, saying that it will maintain the current fed funds rate “until it is confident that the economy has weathered recent events and is on track to achieve its maximum employment and price stability goals.” The Fed was deliberately vague precisely because it doesn’t know how quickly it will tighten policy. But given that the result of this year’s Strategic Review will likely be an explicit targeting of above-2% inflation, we can be fairly certain that the Fed will be slow to remove accommodation. We continue to view inflation expectations and financial conditions as the two most important indicators to track to determine the pace of eventual tightening.3 One result of the Fed’s “lower for longer” bias is that, coming out of the current crisis, we would expect the equity market to bottom and corporate bond spreads to peak before Treasury yields move higher. Bottom Line: We are not prepared to say that bond yields have troughed, even with the fed funds rate now back to the zero bound. So far, none of the four triggers we will use to call the bottom in yields have sent a signal. In fact, we do not rule out longer-maturity Treasury yields falling to 0% during the next couple of months, but negative bond yields in the US are not possible. The Fed’s Emergency Liquidity Measures Chart 5A Lack Of Liquidity On Sunday, Fed Chair Powell said that the reason for moving the FOMC meeting forward was because of worrying signs of deteriorating liquidity in Treasury and Agency MBS markets. Specifically, many observed that the spreads between short-term financing rates (both secured and unsecured) and the risk-free OIS curve jumped last week (Chart 5). Also, mortgage rates didn’t follow Treasury yields lower (Chart 5, bottom panel) and bid/ask spreads widened in the Treasury market. Diagnosing The Problem Our assessment of last week’s liquidity problems is that they arose because, in this post Dodd-Frank/Basel III world, dealer banks are still not sure how to respond during periods of stress. Last week, a lot of nonfinancial firms tapped their revolving credit lines in an attempt to weather the upcoming downturn. This caused an outflow of cash from the banking system. With banks now holding less cash than they were comfortable with, the price of cash in money markets (repo, LIBOR, etc…) started to spike. Because repo is a commonly used tool for financing Treasury trades, the knock-on effect of a spike in the repo rate is a loss of liquidity in the Treasury market. But are banks really short of cash? We got a small taste of the confusion around this issue when repo rates spiked last September. The Fed assumed that it had plenty of room to shrink its balance sheet and drain cash from the banking system because the banks were operating with large liquidity buffers, in excess of what was mandated by regulations like the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR). However, it turned out that banks wanted to hold much more cash than was required by the LCR, in large part because they worried about the Fed’s periodic stress tests, the criteria of which can change over time. The Fed’s Solutions Fortunately, the Fed has taken a lot of aggressive action to help mitigate these problems. First, it announced a large quantity of repo operations last week, then followed that up by announcing direct Treasury and MBS purchases on Sunday. The Fed also lowered the discount window rate to a mere 0.25%, and is encouraging banks to tap that facility if necessary. But, in our view, perhaps the most important measure the Fed announced is simply that policymakers will encourage banks to “use their capital and liquidity buffers”. The fact of the matter is that banks are carrying large amounts of cash but have been hesitant to deploy it because they are worried about regulatory backlash from the Fed. If the Fed can effectively assure banks that it won’t be aggressively enforcing any regulatory action against them for the foreseeable future, then there is already a lot of liquidity in the system waiting to be deployed. Though we expect the Fed’s measures will have a significant positive impact on market liquidity, it will be important to monitor money market spreads going forward. The Fed has still not taken the extreme step of re-launching its crisis-era commercial paper facility and lending directly to nonfinancial corporates. This would be a likely next step if liquidity conditions continue to deteriorate. A Rare Opportunity In TIPS Together, the COVID-induced global demand shock and the OPEC-induced oil supply shock have taken TIPS breakeven inflation rates down to extraordinarily low levels. As of Friday’s close, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was a mere 0.92%, the 5-year rate was 0.56% and the 1-year rate was an absurd -0.49%. In fact, both the 1-year and 2-year breakeven rates were negative! For buy and hold investors, this presents an outstanding opportunity to buy TIPS and short the equivalent-maturity nominal bond. For example, a buy and hold investor will make money by going long TIPS and short nominals as long as headline CPI inflation averages above 0.56% per year for the next five years or above 0.92% per year for the next decade (Chart 6). The fact that the 1-year and 2-year breakeven rates are negative is an even greater mispricing because TIPS come with embedded deflation floors. That is, TIPS principal is adjusted higher by the rate of headline CPI inflation but it is never adjusted lower if headline CPI inflation turns negative. The deflation floor means that a negative 1-year or 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate represents risk-free profit for anyone who can commit capital for the entire 1-year or 2-year investment horizon. A buy and hold investor will make money by going long TIPS and short nominals as long as headline CPI inflation averages above 0.56% per year for the next five years or above 0.92% per year for the next decade. But abstracting from deflation floors, is it even realistic to expect negative headline CPI during the next 12 months? Even in a worst-case scenario, it is difficult to imagine. First, let’s assume that the Brent crude oil price falls to $20 during the next month and then stays there. The second panel of Chart 7 shows that this would cause year-over-year Energy CPI to hit -20% before recovering. Second, let’s assume that core CPI follows the path implied by our Pipeline Inflation Pressure Gauge, falling from its current 2.4% to 1.8% for the next 12 months (Chart 7, panel 4). Third, let’s assume that year-over-year food inflation collapses all the way to 0% (Chart 7, panel 3). Chart 6TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rates Are Too Low Chart 7Worst-Case Scenario For CPI This worst-case scenario would result in 12-month headline CPI of +0.09% for the next 12 months (Chart 7, bottom panel). Now, core CPI inflation did fall below 1% during the last recession, an occurrence that would certainly lead to headline CPI deflation if it happened again. However, shelter makes up 42% of core CPI. Without a significant slowdown in the housing market, such a large decline in core inflation is unlikely. Bottom Line: Current low TIPS breakeven inflation rates signal a rare buying opportunity. Though price swings will be volatile for the next few months, investors with horizons of 1-year or longer would be well advised to go long TIPS versus equivalent-maturity nominal Treasuries. Corporate Bond Spreads:Too Soon To Buy Corporate bond spreads have widened dramatically during the past few weeks. Within the investment grade space, the overall index spread and the average spread excluding the energy sector have both broken above their 2016 peaks. The investment grade energy spread is still 56 bps below its 2016 peak (Chart 8A). In high-yield, the overall index spread is still 112 bps below its 2016 peak. The energy spread is 23 bps below its 2016 peak and the ex-energy spread is 112 bps below its 2016 peak (Chart 8B). Chart 8AInvestment Grade Corporate Bond Spreads Chart 8BHigh-Yield Corporate Bond Spreads Obviously, spreads are widening quickly and value is returning to the sector. This raises the important question of: When will it be a good idea to step in and buy? To answer this question we need to view current spread levels relative to the magnitude of the upcoming economic shock. During the past 12 months, the speculative-grade corporate default rate was 4.5% and our macro model already anticipates a rise to 6.2%. This would bring the default rate above the 5.8% peak seen in 2017, but is probably still too low of an estimate given that the upcoming corporate profit hit is not yet reflected in our model (Chart 9). Gross leverage – the ratio of total debt to pre-tax profits – enters our default rate model with a roughly six month lag, meaning that we wouldn’t expect any current hit to profits to impact the default rate for another six months. For further context, we note that the default rate peaked at 11.2% during the 2001/02 default cycle and at 14.6% during the 2008 financial crisis. Chart 9An Above-Average Default-Adjusted Spread Signals A Buying Opportunity The bottom panel of Chart 9 shows our High-Yield Default-Adjusted Spread. This is a measure of the excess spread in the high-yield index after subtracting ex-post default losses. Its historical average is around 250 bps. We shocked our Default-Adjusted Spread to see what it would be in four different scenarios for the default rate: 6%, 9%, 11% and 15%. The placement of these numbers in the bottom panel of Chart 9 indicates where the Default-Adjusted Spread will be if each scenario is realized. For example, if the default rate comes in at 6% for the next 12 months then the Default-Adjusted Spread will be +347 bps, above its historical average. If the default rate is 9% during the next 12 months the Default-Adjusted Spread will still be positive, at +108 bps, but will be below historical average. A default rate similar to what was seen during past recessions (11% or 15%) would lead to a negative Default-Adjusted Spread. Right now, our best estimate of a short-lived recession would suggest a peak default rate of somewhere between 6% and 9%, probably closer to 9%. Such a scenario would be consistent with a positive Default-Adjusted Spread and likely positive excess returns for corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) relative to Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. However, we also note that periods of spread widening usually culminate with our Default-Adjusted Spread measure well above its historical average. This was the case in 2016, 2009 and 2002. As of now, this sort of attractive valuation will only be achieved if the default rate is 6% or lower during the next 12 months, a forecast that seems overly optimistic. The bottom line is that we are inclined to wait for a more attractive entry point before recommending a shift back to an overweight allocation to corporate bonds versus Treasuries. Though it is probably too late for investors with long time horizons (12 months or more) to sell. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When And Where Will Bond Yields Trough?”, dated March 10, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Technically, the 10-year yield is equal to 10-year rate expectations plus a term premium to compensate investors for locking up funds for 10 years instead of rolling over a series of overnight investments. The term premium is difficult to estimate in practice, but it is likely to be quite close to zero at present. 3 For further details on why investors should focus on these two measures to assess the pace of eventual policy tightening please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Fed In 2020”, dated December 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The S&P 500 is in a bear market, and a recession appears to be inevitable, … : The longest bull market in S&P 500 history succumbed last week to the Saudi-Russia oil war, the relentless drumbeat of spreading COVID-19 disruptions and the realization that it will take even worse market conditions to prompt a meaningful fiscal response. … but it is BCA’s view that the recession will be short, if sharp: Although our conviction level is low, and our view is subject to change as more information becomes available, we expect that the recession is much more likely to produce a V-bottom than a U-bottom. Pent-up demand will be unleashed once the coronavirus runs its course, stoked by monetary and fiscal stimulus initiatives around the world. Are central banks out of bullets?: We are not yet ready to embrace the most provocative idea that came up at our monthly View Meeting last week, but the question highlights the uncertainty that currently pervades markets. First, do no harm: What should an investor do now? Watch and wait. It is too early to re-risk a portfolio, but safe-haven assets are awfully overbought. Cash is worth its weight in gold right now, and those who have it should remember that they call the shots. Feature The S&P 500 entered a bear market last Thursday, bringing down the curtain on the longest US equity bull market in recorded history at just under 11 years.1 We are duly chastened by the misplaced bravado we expressed in last week’s report, which crumbled under the force of the ensuing weekend’s oil market hostilities between Saudi Arabia and Russia. We see the plunge in oil prices, and the looming spike in oil-patch defaults, bankruptcies and layoffs, as the straw that broke the camel’s back, ensuring a 2020 recession. Now that it has slid so far, we expect that the S&P 500 will generate double-digit returns over the next twelve months, but we do not believe that investors should be in any rush to buy. Wild oscillations are a sign of an unhealthy market, and stocks don’t establish a durable bottom while they are still experiencing daily spasms. The Fundamental Take (For What It’s Worth) We nonetheless believe that the recession will be fairly brief, even if it is sharp. The global economy was clearly turning around before the virus emerged, and the US economy was as fit as a fiddle. Data releases across February were decidedly positive, on balance, and the year-to-date data, as incorporated in the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, pointed to robust first quarter growth in an economy that was firing on all cylinders (Chart 1). We continue to believe that most of the demand that goes missing across the first and the second quarters will not be lost for good, but will simply be deferred to the second half of this year and the beginning of next year. The coronavirus has brought an end to the expansion, but the US economy was in rude health before it was infected, and we expect it will make a full and swift recovery. Chart 1The First Quarter Had Been Shaping Up Really Well Chart 2Old Faithful That pent-up demand will be goosed by abundant monetary and fiscal stimulus. We expect that China and the US will take the lead, and will have the most impact on global aggregate demand, but that policymakers in other major economies will also lend a hand. Central banks in Australia, Canada and England have all cut rates in the last two weeks, and British policymakers took the boldest step, pairing last week’s rate cut with an immediate 30-billion-pound infusion of emergency spending, and a pledge to spend 600 billion pounds on infrastructure upgrades between now and 2025.2 Australia announced a plan to inject fiscal stimulus equivalent to about 1% of GDP Thursday morning, and Germany’s ruling party indicated a willingness to run a budget deficit to combat the virus.3 Our China Investment Strategy team notes that the Chinese authorities are already supporting domestic demand via aid to threatened businesses and out-of-work individuals, and are poised to open the infrastructure taps (Chart 2). Global aggregate demand is also set to receive a boost from the oil plunge, although it will arrive with a lag. Energy sector layoffs and the tightening in monetary conditions from wider bond spreads and marginally tighter bank lending standards will exert an immediate drag on activity. Once that drag fades, however, the positive supply-shock effects will take hold, helping households stretch their paychecks and non-energy businesses expand their profit margins. Although the effect of falling oil prices is mixed for the US now that fracking has made it a heavyweight oil producer, more economies are oil importers than exporters, and global growth is inversely related to oil price moves. We are keenly aware that markets are paying no attention whatsoever to economic data releases right now. They are backward-looking, after all, and fundamentals are not the driving force behind current market moves anyway. The data are useful, however, for evaluating the fundamental backdrop once the non-stop selling abates, as it eventually will. When it becomes important to take the measure of the economy and where it’s headed, investors will be able to make a more informed judgment if they have a good read on how the economy was doing before it was exposed to the virus (Chart 3). Chart 3Layoffs Are Coming, But They Hadn't Started By Early March Investment Strategy The near-term equity view was cautious when we held our View Meeting Wednesday morning before the open. No one thought investors should be in any hurry to buy, and while not everyone shared the bleakest S&P 500 downside estimate of 2,400 (well within sight now), no one suggested that the index had already bottomed. One participant made the case for a negative 10-year Treasury yield, but we still have little appetite for Treasuries as a house. We expect the 10-year yield will be higher in twelve months than it is now, if perhaps only modestly. We like equities' 12-month prospects, but they may have to decline some more before Congress joins hands and puts a floor under them. For anyone expecting US fiscal stimulus to bail out the markets, our geopolitical team sounded a note of caution. A recession is kryptonite for incumbent presidential candidates, and the more the virus squeezes the economy, the greater the Democrats’ chances of capturing the White House and the Senate. Our Geopolitical Strategy service fully expects that Democrats will eventually agree to a sizable spending package, but only after allowing the situation to deteriorate some more. As long as they don’t look like they’re putting party concerns ahead of the nation’s welfare, they can dent the president’s re-election prospects by waiting to throw a lifeline to the economy and financial markets. The administration’s initial proposal, as alluded to in the president’s prime-time Oval Office address on Wednesday night, fell way short of what the market sought. Its small-bore items seemed woefully inadequate to stem the tide, and raised the unsettling prospect that the fiscal cavalry might fail to ride to the rescue because the administration didn’t think it needed to be summoned. The good news for markets is that governments get an almost unlimited number of do-overs.4 The first iteration’s failure ensures that the second will be more ambitious, and if that fails, the third iteration will be even bigger. Thank You, Sir, May I Have Another? News of disruptions to economic activity, and daily life, in the United States piled up last week. Colleges closed their gates en masse for what remains of the academic year; concerts and music festivals were cancelled; the NCAA basketball tournament was initially closed to fans, then cancelled altogether; and all of the major North American professional sports leagues have suspended their seasons. In many instances, city and state ordinances banning mass gatherings forced sports franchises’ and concert promoters’ hands. The relentless drumbeat of bad news did markets no favors, and it surely did not help business or consumer confidence as broadcasters, hotels, restaurants, bartenders, taxi drivers and arena staff totted up their lost income. Today’s pain may be tomorrow’s gain, however. While draconian measures weigh on peoples’ spirits and crimp economic activity in the immediate term, they increase the chances of limiting the virus’ spread and mitigating its ultimate effect. As our Global Investment Strategy colleagues have pointed out, there is a trade-off between health and growth. Bulking up health safeguards unfortunately involves some growth sacrifices. Are Central Banks Out Of Bullets? Chart 4If At First You Don't Succeed, ... The most provocative line of argument in last week’s firm-wide discussion was the idea that the coronavirus is a bit of a red herring, and that the true driver of the global market selloff is the failure of the policy put. That’s to say that the efficacy of, and the belief in, central banks’ ability to shore up markets and the economy has crumbled. So far, this round of emergency rate cuts has failed to stem the flow of red on Bloomberg terminals and television screens (Chart 4). Spending plans have underwhelmed as well, with British, Australian and Japanese equities all fizzling following the announcement of fiscal stimulus measures. The end of markets’ monetary policy era would mark a major inflection point, if not a full-on regime change. We are hesitant to make such a sweeping declaration now, however. As one of our colleagues put it in making the case for further declines in rates, the golden rule of investing is never to lean against a primary trend. Positioning for an end to central banks’ influence on markets would mean going against 33 years of history that began with the Fed’s post-Black Monday statement affirming its “readiness to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system.” Central bankers are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, but there’s a reason why You can’t fight the Fed became a cherished truism. It affects the real economy when it turns its policy dials. If monetary stimulus is aligned with fiscal stimulus, as it just might be next week, it can make for a potent cocktail. A devotee of the Austrian School of Economics may grind his or her teeth to dust over the endless intervention in markets, but the results are popular with the public and elected officials, and we can expect that they’ll continue over most professional investors’ relevant timeframes. Public officials will let go of the Debt Supercycle controls only when they’re pried out of their cold, dead hands. What Now? It feels like it was a month ago, but just last week we were of the view that a correction was more likely than a bear market. As we wrote then: We remain constructive on risk assets because we think the selling has gotten overdone. There may well be more of it, and the S&P 500 could reach its 2,708.92 bear-market level before we can publish again next Monday, but we will be buying it in our own account all the way there. Compounding our embarrassment and regret, we actually did buy shares in a SIFI bank on Tuesday as they approached their tangible book value. Markets were unimpressed with the initial monetary salvo, but there's more where that came from (and some fiscal artillery, too). We have learned our lesson and will wait before committing any more capital. We have also learned our lesson about “overdone selling.” Despite the dramatic gap between the S&P 500 and its 200-day moving average (Chart 5), every single sale over the last three weeks has proven to be a good one. Cutting one’s losses is a deservedly celebrated portfolio management rule, and we cannot object to any client who wants to take some exposure off the table. Chart 5The Equity Selloff Has Become Extreme We have little love for the havens that have already spiked, like gold, Treasuries, utilities and makers and sellers of hand sanitizer, disinfectant wipes and surgical masks. Insurance in the form of index puts is bracingly expensive. Our preferred way of taking advantage of the massive market disruption (Chart 6 and Table 1) is to write out-of-the money puts on individual stocks at strike prices where we’d be happy to own them. With the VIX in the 50s, much less the 60s or 70s, an investor writing puts 10% out of the money on a range of S&P 500 constituents5 can get paid double-digit annualized returns in exchange for agreeing to get hit down 10% between now and March 20th or April 17th. Chart 6Selling Insurance Looks More Appealing Than Buying It Right Now Table 1One Week, Two Historic Declines We recognize that not every investor has discretion to write puts, and it is not something to be done lightly in any event. The compensation is so high because it is a contractual agreement to buy stock in a relentlessly falling market. (Options only confer a right to transact for their buyers; they’re an iron-clad obligation to transact for their sellers.) Our species’ cognitive biases being what they are, however, we like the strapped-to-the-mast feature of writing puts because it commits an investor to following through on a course of action s/he decided upon before price declines had a chance to shake his/her resolve. It is one thing to have said that one would buy a 35-dollar stock if it ever got to 18, and quite another to follow through now that it’s gone from 35 to 21 in short order.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The bull market began on March 10, 2009, at 676.53, and ended February 19, 2020, at 3,386.15. Its 400% advance was achieved at an annualized rate of 15.8%. 2 Nominal 4Q19 UK GDP was about 560 billion pounds. 3 Believe it or not, this is kind of a big deal for Berlin. 4 As we were going to press, it looked as if House Democrats and the administration were nearing agreement on a package to protect vulnerable workers and small businesses, while the combined private- and public-sector efforts outlined in the Rose Garden suggested that the US might be capable of stemming the spread of the virus soon. 5 Type [ticker]-F8-PUT into Bloomberg for the full menu of maturities and strike prices for any given stock. The annualized return for writing the put is equal to the option premium divided by the strike price, multiplied by (360/the number of days until expiration). For near-month contracts, if the premium is around 1% of the strike, the annualized return on the notional capital committed is 10%.

Dear Client, In addition to this week’s report, BCA Research will hold webcasts over the coming days to discuss the economic and financial outlook amid the myriad of uncertainties gripping global markets. I will take part in a roundtable discussion alongside my fellow BCA Strategists Arthur Budaghyan, Mathieu Savary, and Caroline Miller for a live webcast on Friday, March 13 at 8:00 AM EDT (12:00 PM GMT, 1:00 PM CET, 8:00 PM HKT). In addition, I will hold a webcast on Monday, March 16 at 12:00 PM EDT (4:00 PM GMT). Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights A global recession is now a fait accompli. The only question is whether there will be a technical recession lasting a couple of quarters, or a more prolonged downturn that produces a sizeable increase in unemployment rates. We lean towards the former outcome. Unlike during most recessions, the decrease in labor demand will be mitigated by a decline in labor supply, as potentially millions of workers are confined to their homes. This will limit the rise in unemployment, at least initially. The pandemic is likely to prompt firms to increase inventory levels for fear of further disruptions to their supply chains. This should provide a short-term boost to output. While it is possible that spending will remain broadly depressed even after the panic subsides, this seems unlikely. Private-sector finances were reasonably strong going into the crisis, while ultra-low government bond yields will incentivize increased fiscal outlays. Spending on leisure travel and public entertainment will remain subdued well into 2021, but much of this demand will be redirected to other categories of discretionary consumer purchases, particularly in the online realm. Health care expenditures will also increase. The collapse in oil prices following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 represents a positive supply shock for the global economy, albeit one that will have negative consequences for oil-extraction sectors. We tactically upgraded stocks on the morning of Friday, February 28. That was obviously a major mistake: While global equities did rally 7% higher after our upgrade, they have since given up all their gains (and then some). For now, we are maintaining a modest overweight recommendation to equities. However, this is a low-conviction view, and we would not dissuade more conservative investors from reducing risk exposure. We would only consider upgrading stocks to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 dropped to 2250, or the number of new infections outside of China peaked. In the meantime, we are downgrading high-yield credit tactically, as the odds of earnings weakness prompting a near-term rise in default expectations warrant caution. What A Way To Start The Decade So far, the 2020s may not be roaring, but they are certainly not boring. At the outset of the crisis, there were three scenarios for the COVID-19 outbreak: 1) A regional epidemic largely confined to China; 2) a series of global outbreaks, successfully short-circuited by a combination of government intervention and voluntary “personal distancing” measures; 3) A full-blown pandemic that exposes a significant proportion of the planet to the virus. Unfortunately, the first scenario has been ruled out. Policymakers are now trying to achieve the second scenario. Successful containment would “flatten the curve” of new infections, while allowing the sick to receive better treatment than they would otherwise. It would also buy precious time to develop a vaccine and increase the output of face masks, hand sanitizers, and other products that could slow the spread of the disease. Health Versus Growth Ironically, while the second scenario is clearly preferable to a full-blown pandemic from a health perspective, it may be more damaging from the very narrow, technical perspective of GDP accounting. It all depends on how severe the measures to quash each outbreak need to be. If simple hygiene measures and social distancing turn out to be enough, the economic fallout will be minimal. If ongoing mass quarantines and business closures are necessary, the damage will be severe. History suggests that containment efforts can work. During the Spanish flu, US cities such as St. Louis, which took early action to slow the spread of the disease, ended up with far fewer deaths than cities such as Philadelphia which did not (Chart 1). Western Samoa did not impose any travel restrictions and lost a quarter of its population. American Samoa closed its border and suffered no deaths. Chart 1Containment Efforts Can Be Effective: The Case Of The Spanish Flu Recent experience suggests that COVID-19 can be stopped, even after community contagion has set in. The number of new Chinese cases has fallen from 3,892 on February 5 to 31 on March 11. South Korea seems to be getting the virus under control. The number of new cases there has declined from 813 on February 29 to 242 (Chart 2). Japan and Singapore also appear to be succeeding in preventing the virus from spreading rapidly. Chart 2Coronavirus: The Authorities In East Asia Seem To Be In Control Of The Situation What remains unclear is whether other countries can replicate East Asia’s experience. A recent Chinese study estimated that R-naught – the average number of people someone with the virus ends up infecting – fell from 3.86 at the outset of the outbreak to 0.32 following interventions (Chart 3).1 In other words, China was able to lower R-naught to one-third of what was necessary to stabilize the number of new infections. If one wanted to be optimistic, one could argue that other countries could get away with less heavy-handed measures, even if it is at the expense of a somewhat slower decline in the infection rate. Chart 3Severe Containment Measures Have Changed The Course Of The Wuhan Outbreak Unfortunately, given how contagious the virus appears to be, it is unlikely that simple measures such as regularly washing one’s hands, avoiding large gatherings, and wearing a face mask in public when sick will suffice. Trade-offs will have to be made between growth and health. Moreover, if the virus becomes endemic in a few countries that do not have the institutional capacity to contain it, this could create a viral reservoir that produces repeated outbreaks in the wider world. The result could feel like a ghastly game of whack-a-mole. The Fatality Rate The degree to which countries pursue costly containment measures depends on how deadly the virus turns out to be. On the one hand, there is some evidence that the fatality rate from COVID-19 is lower than the 2%-to-3% that has been widely reported once mild or asymptomatic cases, which often go undetected, are taken into account. This may explain why South Korea, which has arguably done a better job of testing suspected patients than any other country, has reported a fatality rate of only 0.7%. Like the seasonal flu, the death rate from COVID-19 appears to be heavily tilted towards the elderly. In Italy, 89% of COVID-19 deaths have occurred among those who are 70 and older. On the ill-fated Diamond Princess cruise liner, not a single person under the age of 70 has died. The fatality rate for passengers on the ship older than 70 is 2.4%. The seasonal flu kills about 1% of those it infects over the age of 70. Based on this simple calculation, COVID-19 is more lethal, but not light-years more lethal, than the typical flu (and possibly less lethal than the flu is for young children). Unfortunately, these optimistic estimates assume that patients with COVID-19 can continue to receive appropriate care. As we saw in Wuhan, where the official death rate stands at 4.5% compared to 0.9% in the rest of China, and as we are now seeing in Italy, once the health care system becomes overwhelmed, death rates can rise sharply. Bottom Line: Containing the virus will be economically costly, but given the potentially large death toll from a full-blown pandemic, most countries will be willing to pay the price. A Global Recession Even before the virus became endemic outside China, we estimated that global growth would fall to zero on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1. As we cautioned back then, the risk to our forecast was tilted to the downside, and that has proven to be the case. We now expect the global economy to shrink not just in the first quarter but in the second quarter as well, as country after country experiences a surge in new infections. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth constitute a technical recession. Despite the drop in new cases in China over the past two weeks, most high-frequency measures of economic activity such as property sales, railway-loaded coal volumes, and traffic congestion have yet to return anywhere close to normal levels (Chart 4). In the US, hotel occupancy rates, movie ticket sales, and attendance at sporting events were all close to normal levels as of last week. However, that is changing quickly. Already, automobile traffic in Seattle, one of the cities most hard-hit by the virus, has fallen sharply (Chart 5). Chart 4China: It Will Take Time For Life To Return To Normal Chart 5US: Staying Home More In Seattle Due To The Virus? Qualitatively Different While a recession in the first half of 2020 is now unavoidable, the nature of this recession is likely to be quite different than in the past. To understand why, it is useful to review what causes most recessions. A typical recession involves a prolonged loss of aggregate demand. Such a loss of demand can result from either financial market overheating or economic overheating. Financial market overheating can occur if a credit-fueled asset bubble bursts, leaving people with less wealth struggling to pay off debt. For example, US residential investment fell from 6.6% of GDP in 2005 to 2.5% of 2010. Thus, even after the credit markets thawed, there was still a large hole in aggregate demand that needed to be filled. A similar, though less severe, loss of demand occurred when the bursting of the dotcom bubble led to severe cutbacks in IT spending. Economic overheating occurs when a lack of spare capacity puts upward pressure on inflation. Wary of accelerating prices, central banks slam on the brakes, raising interest rates into restrictive territory. This often results in a recession. In both types of recessions, there are usually second-round effects that can swamp the initial shock to aggregate demand. As spending falls, firms start to lay off workers. The resulting loss in household income leads to less spending. Even those who retain their jobs are apt to feel less confident, leading to an increase in precautionary savings. For their part, businesses tend to cut production as inventory levels swell. Things only return to normal once enough pent-up demand has accumulated and/or policy has become sufficiently stimulative to revive spending. Framed in this way, one can see that the current downturn differs from past downturns in at least three important respects. First, unlike during most recessions, the decrease in labor demand this time around will be partly mitigated by a decline in labor supply, as potentially millions of workers are confined to their homes. While this will not prevent many workers from temporarily losing income, it will limit the increase in unemployment, at least initially. We have already seen this in China, where GDP growth collapsed but companies are complaining about a shortage of migrant labor. Second, rather than falling, inventory levels may actually rise. Since companies will have to deal with pervasive supply shocks of unknown frequency, duration, and magnitude, their natural inclination will be to increase inventory levels for fear that they will not be able to access their supply chains when they need them. If recent reports of hoarding of toilet paper and bottled water are any guide, the same sort of behavior will show up among consumers. Again, in the short term, this additional demand will help to keep unemployment from rising as much as it would otherwise. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the ongoing crisis is the result of an exogenous shock rather than an endogenous slowdown. In fact, a variety of economic indicators such as US payrolls, the Chinese PMI, and German factory orders were all pointing to an acceleration in global growth before the crisis began. This suggests that growth could recover quickly once the panic subsides. While it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty how long it will take for the panic to end, it may not last as long as many fear. Investors should particularly pay attention to the situation in Italy. If the number of new cases peaks there, it could create a sense that other western countries will be able to get the virus under control. Second-Round Effects? Although it is possible that economies will remain depressed even after the panic subsides, this seems unlikely. Private-sector finances were reasonably strong going into the crisis. The private-sector financial balance – the difference between what companies and households earn and spend – is in surplus in most countries, including China (Chart 6). Chart 6The Private Sector Spends Less Than It Earns In Most Economies Chart 7Lower Oil Prices Eventually Lead To Higher Growth Granted, not all sectors are likely to prove equally resilient. Spending on leisure travel and public entertainment will remain subdued well into 2021. The collapse in oil prices following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 will also wreak havoc on oil producers. In both cases, however, there will be offsetting benefits. Much of the demand for travel and entertainment will be redirected to other categories of discretionary consumer purchases, particularly in the online realm. And while lower oil prices will hurt producers, they represent a boon for consumers and companies that use petroleum as an input. In general, as Chart 7 illustrates, global growth usually accelerates following declines in oil prices. Fiscal Policy Will Turn More Stimulative Even before the crisis began, we argued that most governments should permanently increase fiscal deficits in order to raise the neutral rate of interest. At the current juncture, with a recession upon us and government bond yields at ultra-low levels, the failure to enact meaningful fiscal stimulus would be economic malpractice of the highest order. In addition to easing measures being rolled out by central bankers, our sense is that we will get a lot of fiscal stimulus, sooner rather than later. During most recessions, there is always a chorus of voices from people whose own jobs are secure about how a downturn is necessary to cleanse the system. This time around, it is obvious that the victims are not to blame. Politicians will not endear themselves to voters by denying the need for fiscal support to households struggling with medical bills and lost time from work and businesses facing bankruptcy. President Trump’s pledge this week to cut payroll taxes and increase transfers to those affected by the virus is just a taste of what’s to come. Investment Conclusions Chart 8Stock-To-Bond Ratio: A Lot Of The Bad News Has Already Been Priced In We tactically upgraded stocks on the morning of Friday, February 28. That was obviously a major mistake: While global equities did rally 7% higher after our upgrade, they have since given up all their gains (and then some). In retrospect, we should have paid more attention to our own analysis in our report “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.” For now, we are maintaining a modest overweight recommendation to equities. The total return ratio between stocks and bonds has fallen by a similar magnitude as in the run-up to prior recessions, suggesting that much of the bad news has already been priced in (Chart 8). Nevertheless, significant downside risks remain, which is why we would characterize our equity overweight as a fairly low-conviction view. We would not dissuade more conservative investors from reducing risk exposure. As discussed above, containing the virus could lead to significant economic disruptions. We would only consider upgrading stocks to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 dropped to 2250, or the number of new infections outside of China peaked. In the meantime, we are downgrading high-yield credit tactically, as the odds of earnings weakness prompting a near-term rise in default expectations warrant caution. Safe-haven government bond yields will probably not rise much from current levels, at least in the near term. The Fed cut rates by 50 basis points last week and will cut rates by another 50 basis points next week. Looking further out, however, bonds are massively overvalued and will suffer mightily as life returns to normal.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Chaolong Wang, Li Liu, Xingjie Hao, Huan Guo, Qi Wang, Jiao Huang, Na He, Hongjie Yu, Xihong Lin, Sheng Wei, and Tangchun Wu, “Evolving Epidemiology and Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,”medrxiv.org, March 6, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades