ユーロ圏

Highlights The six-month increase in European bank credit flows amounts to an underwhelming $70 billion, compared to a record high $660 billion in the US and $550 billion in China. Underweight European domestic cyclicals versus their peers in the US and China. Specifically, underweight euro area banks versus US banks. Overweight equities on a long-term (2 years plus) horizon. The mid-single digit return that equities are offering makes them attractive versus ultra-low yielding bonds. But remain neutral equities on a 1-year horizon, until it becomes clear that we can prevent a second wave of the pandemic. Fractal trade: long bitcoin cash, short ethereum. Feature Chart I-1Bank Credit 6-Month Flow Up $70 Bn ##br##In The Euro Area… Chart I-2…But Up $700 Bn ##br##In The US Governments and central banks are dishing out an alphabet soup of stimulus. The question is: how much is reaching those that need it? Our preferred approach to assessing monetary stimulus is to focus on the evolution of bank credit flows and bond yields over a six-month period. Bank Credit Flows Have Surged In The US And China, Not In Europe On our preferred assessment, Europe’s monetary stimulus is underwhelming compared with that in the US and China. The six-month increase in US bank credit flows, at $660 billion, is the highest in a decade and not far from the highest ever. In China, the equivalent six-month increase is $550 billion. But in the euro area, the six-month increase in bank credit flows amounts to an underwhelming $70 billion (Charts I-1 - Chart I-4). Chart I-3Bank Credit 6-Month Flow Up $550 Bn In China… Chart I-4...And Up ##br##Globally Admittedly, US firms are drawing on pre-arranged bank credit lines rather than taking out new loans. Furthermore, the link between bank credit flows and final demand might be compromised during the current economic shutdown. For example, if firms are borrowing to pay workers who are not producing any output, then the transmission of a credit flow acceleration to a GDP acceleration would be weakened. Europe’s monetary stimulus is underwhelming compared with that in the US and China. Nevertheless, some bank credit flows will still reach the real economy. And the US and China are creating more bank credit flows than Europe. Focus On The Deceleration Of The Bond Yield Turning to the bond yield, it is important to focus not on its level, and not on its decline. Instead, it is important to focus on its deceleration. The focus on the deceleration of the bond yield sounds counterintuitive, but it results from a fundamental accounting identity. The next two paragraphs may seem somewhat technical but read them carefully, as they are important for understanding the transmission of stimulus. GDP is a flow. It measures the flow of goods and services produced in a quarter. Hence, GDP receives a contribution from the flow of credit. The flow of credit, in turn, is established by the level of bond yields. When we talk about stimulating the economy, we mean boosting the GDP growth rate from, say, -1 percent to +1 percent, which is an acceleration of GDP. This acceleration in the GDP flow must come from an acceleration in the flow of credit. This acceleration in the flow of credit, in turn, must come from a deceleration of bond yields. In other words, the bond yield decline in the most recent period must be greater than the decline in the previous period. Banks tend to perform better after bond yields have decelerated. The good news is that in the US and China, bond yields have decelerated; the bad news is that in Europe, they have not. Over the past six months, the 10-year bond yield has decelerated by 40 bps in the US and by 65 bps in China. Yet in France, despite the coronavirus crisis, the 10-year bond yield has accelerated by 60 bps (Charts I-5 - Chart I-8).1 Chart I-5The Bond Yield Has Accelerated ##br##In The Euro Area... Chart I-6...Decelerated ##br##In The US... Chart I-7...Decelerated In China... Chart I-8...And Decelerated Globally European bond yields are struggling to decelerate because of their proximity to the lower bound to bond yields, at around -1 percent. The inability to decelerate the bond yield constrains the monetary stimulus that Europe can apply compared to the US and China, whose bond yields are much further from the lower bound constraint. Compared to Europe, the US and China have much stronger decelerations in their bond yields and much stronger accelerations in their bank credit flows. This suggests underweighting European domestic cyclicals versus their peers in the US and China. Specifically, banks tend to perform better after bond yields have decelerated; and they tend to perform worse after bond yields have accelerated. On this basis, underweight euro area banks versus US banks (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Banks Perform Better After Bond Yields Have Decelerated, Worse After Bond Yields Have Accelerated Long-Term Asset Allocation Is Straightforward, Shorter-Term Is Not The level of the bond yield, or of so-called ‘financial conditions’, does not drive the short-term oscillations in credit flows. To repeat, it is the acceleration and deceleration of the bond yield that matters. Yet when it comes to the long-term valuation of assets, the level of the bond yield does matter, and when the bond yield is ultra-low it matters enormously. An ultra-low bond yield justifies a much lower prospective return on competing long-duration assets, like equities. The reason is that when bond yields approach their lower bound, bond prices can no longer rise, they can only fall. This higher riskiness of bonds justifies an abnormally low (or zero) ‘risk premium’ on equities. In this world of ultra-low numbers – for both bond yields and equity risk premiums – the low to mid-single digit long-term return that equities are offering makes them attractive versus bonds (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Equities Are Offering Mid-Single Digit Long-Term Returns But this long-term valuation argument only works for those with long-term investment horizons. What does long-term mean? There is no clear dividing line, but we would define long-term as two years at the very minimum. For a one-year investment horizon, the much more important question is: what will happen to 12-month forward earnings (profits)?  In the stock market recessions of 2008-09 and 2015-16, the stock market reached its low just before forward earnings reached their low. Assuming the same holds true in 2020-21, we must establish whether forward earnings are close to their low or not. In 2008-09, world forward earnings collapsed by 45 percent. In the current recession, which is putatively worse, world forward earnings are down by less than 20 percent to date. To have already reached the cycle low in forward earnings with only half the decline of 2008, the current recession needs to be much shorter than the 2008-09 episode (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11In The Global Financial Crisis, Forward Earnings Collapsed By 45 Percent Chart I-12In The Current Crisis, Forward Earnings Are Down 20 Percent. Is That Enough? Whether this turns out to be the case or not hinges on the pandemic and our response to it. A controlled easing of lockdowns will boost growth as more of the economy comes back to life. But too rapid an easing of lockdowns will unleash a second wave of the pandemic, requiring a second wave of economic shutdowns, a double dip recession and a new low in the stock market. Hence, if you have a long-term (2-year plus) investment horizon, the choice between equities and bonds is very straightforward: overweight equities. On this long-term horizon, German and Swedish equities are especially attractive versus negative-yielding bonds. On a 1-year investment horizon, the key question is: can we avoid a second wave of the pandemic? But if you have a 1-year investment horizon, the choice is less straightforward, because it hinges on whether we can avoid a second wave of the pandemic or not. Until it becomes clear that governments will not reopen economies too quickly, remain neutral equities on the 1-year horizon. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is a pair-trade within the cryptocurrency asset-class. Long bitcoin cash / short ethereum. Set the profit target at 21 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. The 12-month rolling win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-13Bitcoin Cash Vs. Ethereum When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In the US, the 10-year bond yield has declined by 120 bps in the past six months compared with 80 bps in the preceding six months, which equals a deceleration of 40 bps; in China, the 10-year bond yield has declined by 73 bps in the past six months compared with 18 bps in the preceding six months, which equals a deceleration of 65 bps; but in France, the 10-year bond yield has increased by 12 bps in the past six months compared with a 48 bps decline in the preceding six months, which equals an acceleration of 60 bps. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

特別レポート

Dear Client, This week, in lieu of our regular report, we are sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan discusses the global fiscal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and provides some perspective on whether the response will be enough to prevent an "L-shaped" economic outcome. I hope you find the report insightful. Last Friday, I participated in a webcast with my fellow BCA Strategists Caroline Miller and Arthur Budaghyan where we discussed the outlook for developed and emerging market equities over the immediate (0-3 month) and cyclical (12 month) horizon. You can access a replay of the webcast here. Please note we will be sending out our regular weekly report next week. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession. The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. Even when narrowly-defined, the announced (or likely) fiscal response of the US, China, and Germany is quite large and appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. This is not the case, however, in other euro area economies (France, Italy, and Spain), or in emerging markets. Our analysis also suggests that the global fiscal response will need to increase if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. Feature The global economic expansion that began in 2009 has come to an abrupt end due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggressive containment measures necessary to control the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse in health care systems around the world have caused a large and sudden stop in global economic activity, which has prompted unprecedented responses from governments around the world. In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession (characterized by a very prolonged return to trend growth). The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. But for now, we (tentatively) conclude that the fiscal response appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. However, there are two important caveats. First, while Germany has provided among the strongest fiscal responses globally, measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Second, the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year – more will have to be done. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. In this regard, the gradual re-opening of several US states by early-May, while positive for economic activity in the short-run, is a non-trivial risk to the US and global economic outlooks over the coming 6-12 months. This risk must be closely watched by investors. The Global Fiscal Response: Comparing Across Countries And Across Measures The flurry of policy announcements from national governments over the past six weeks has led to a great degree of confusion about the size and disposition of the global COVID-19 fiscal response. Our analysis is based heavily on the IMF’s tracking of these measures, albeit with a few adjustments. We also rely on analysis from Bruegel, a prominent European macroeconomic think-tank, as well as our own Geopolitical Strategy team and a variety of news reports. Chart 1 presents the IMF’s estimate of the total fiscal response to the crisis across major countries, as of April 23, broken down into “above-the-line” and “below-the-line” measures. Above-the-line measures are those that directly impact government budget balances (direct fiscal spending and revenue measures, usually tax deferrals), whereas below-the-line measures typically involve balance sheet measures to backstop businesses through capital injections and loan guarantees. Chart 1 makes it clear that the fiscal response of advanced economies is enormous when including both above- and below-the-line measures. By this metric, the response of most developed economies is on the order of 10% of GDP, and well above 30% in the case of Italy and Germany. However, using the sum of above- and below-the-line measures to gauge the fiscal response of any country may not be the ideal approach, given that below-the-line measures are contingent either on the triggering of certain conditions or on the provision of credit to households and firms from the financial system. Below-the-line measures also likely increase the liability position of the private sector, thus raising the odds of negative second-round effects. Chart 1The Global Fiscal Response Is Huge When Including All Measures Instead, Chart 2 compares the countries shown in Chart 1 based only on the IMF’s estimate of above-the-line measures, and with a 4% downward adjustment to Japan’s reported spending to account for previously announced measures.1 The chart shows that countries fall into roughly three categories in terms of the magnitude of their above-the-line response: in excess of 4% of GDP (Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, and Germany), 2-3% (the UK, Brazil, and China), and sub-2% (all other countries shown in the chart, including Spain, Italy, and France). Chart 2The Picture Changes When Excluding Below-The-Line Measures Analysis by Bruegel, provides somewhat different estimates of the global COVID-19 fiscal response for select European countries as well as the US (Table 1). Bruegel breaks down discretionary fiscal measures that have been announced into three categories: those involving an immediate fiscal impulse (new spending and foregone revenues), those related to deferred payments, and other liquidity provisions and guarantees. Bruegel distinguishes between the first and second categories because of their differing impact on government budget balances. Deferrals improve the liquidity positions of individuals and companies but do not cancel their obligations, meaning that they result only in a temporary deterioration in budget balances. Table 1 highlights that Bruegel’s estimates of the sum of above- and below-the-line measures are similar to the IMF’s estimates for the US, the UK, and Spain, but are smaller for Italy and larger for France and Germany (particularly the latter). These differences underscore the extreme uncertainty facing investors, who have to contend not only with varying estimates of the magnitude of government policies but also a torrent of news concerning the evolution of the pandemic itself. Table 1The Type Of Fiscal Response Varies Significantly Across Countries Chart 3 presents our best current estimate of the above-the-line fiscal response of several countries (the measure we deem to be most likely to result in an immediate fiscal impulse), by excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals to the best of our ability.2Chart 3 is based on a combination of data from the IMF, Bruegel analysis, and BCA estimates and news analysis. Chart 3When Narrowly Defined, Several Countries Are Responding Forcefully, But Many Countries Are Not Overall, investors can draw the following conclusions from Charts 1 – 3 and Table 1: When measured as the total of above- and below-the-line measures, nearly all large developed market countries have responded with sizeable measures. Emerging market economies are the clear laggards. Excluding below-the-line measures and using our approach, Australia, the US, China, Germany, Japan, and Canada appear to be spending the most relative to the size of their economies. While Japan’s “headline” fiscal number was inflated by including previously-announced spending, it is still decently-sized after adjustment. Outside of Germany, the rest of Europe appears to be providing a middling or poor above-the-line fiscal response. The UK appears to be providing between 4-5% of GDP as a fiscal impulse, whereas the fiscal response in Italy, Spain, and France looks more like that of emerging markets than of advanced economies. Measuring The Stimulus Against The Shock Despite the substantial amount of new information over the past six weeks concerning the evolution of the pandemic and the attendant policy response, it remains extremely difficult to judge what the balance between shock and stimulus will be and what that means for the profile of growth. Nonetheless, below we present a framework that investors can use to approach the question, and that can be updated as new information emerges concerning the impact of the shutdowns and the extent of the response. Our approach involves analyzing four specific questions: What is the size of the initial shock? What are the likely second-round effects on growth? What is the likely multiplier on fiscal spending? Will the composition of fiscal spending alter its effectiveness? The Size Of The Initial Shock Chart 4 presents the OECD’s estimates of the initial impact of partial or complete shutdowns on economic activity in several countries. The OECD first used a sectoral approach to estimating the impact on activity while lockdowns are in effect, assuming a 100% shutdown for manufacturing of transportation equipment and other personal services, a 50% decline in activity for construction and professional services, and a 75% decline for retail trade, wholesale trade, hotels, restaurants, and air travel. Chart 4 illustrates the total impact of this approach for key developed and emerging economies. Chart 4Annual GDP Will Be 1.5%-2.5% Lower For Each Month Lockdowns Are In Effect The OECD’s approach provides a credible estimate of the impact of aggressive containment policies, and implies that annual real GDP is likely to be 1.5-2.5% lower for major countries for each month that lockdown policies are in effect. This implies that output in major economies is likely to fall 3.5% - 6% for the year from the initial shock alone, assuming an aggressive 10-week lockdown followed by a complete return to normal. Estimating Potential Second Round Effects Chart 5 presents projections from the Bank for International Settlements on the spillover and spillback potential of a 5% initial shock to the level of global GDP from the COVID-19 pandemic (equivalent to a 20% impact on an annualized basis). The chart shows that the cumulative impact of the initial shock rises to 7-8% by the end of this year for the US, euro area, and emerging markets, and 6% for other advanced economies. These estimates account for both domestic second round effects of the initial shock, as well as the reverberating impact of the shock on global trade. Chart 5 also shows the devastating effect that a second wave of COVID-19 emerging in the second half of the year would have after including spillover and spillback effects, assuming that only partial lockdowns would be required. In this scenario, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region, suggesting that investors should be more concerned about the possibility of additional lockdown events than they should be about the after-effects of the first wave of infections (more on this below). Chart 5Additional Lockdown Events Are A Greater Risk Than First Wave After-Effects Will Fiscal Multipliers Be High Or Low? When examining the academic literature on fiscal multipliers, the first impression is that multipliers are likely to be extremely large in the current environment. Tables 2 and 3 present a range of academic multiplier estimates aggregated by the IMF, categorized by the stage of the business cycle and whether the zero lower bound is in effect. The tables tell a clear story: multipliers are typically meaningfully larger during recessions than during expansions, and extremely large when the zero lower bound (ZLB) is in effect. However, there are at least two reasons to expect that the fiscal multiplier during this crisis will not be as large as Tables 2 and 3 suggest. First, it is obviously the case that the multiplier will be low while full or even partial lockdowns are in effect, as consumers will not have the ability to fully act in response to stimulative measures. This will be partially offset by a burst of spending once lockdowns are removed, but the empirical multiplier estimates during recessions shown in Table 2 have not been measured during a period when constraints to spending have been in effect, and we suspect that this will have at least somewhat of a dampening effect on the efficacy of fiscal spending relative to previous recessions (even once regulations concerning store closures are removed). Table 2Fiscal Multipliers Are Much Larger During Recessions Than Expansions Table 3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound Second, Table 3 likely overestimates the multiplier at the ZLB. These estimates have been based on models rather than empirical analysis, and appear to be in reference to the prevention of large subsequent declines in output following an initial shock. The modeled finding of a large multiplier at the ZLB occurs because increased deficit spending will not lead to higher policy rates in a scenario where the neutral rate has fallen below zero. But it seems difficult to believe that the fiscal multiplier during ZLB episodes, defined as the impact of fiscal spending on the path of output relative to the initial shock (not relative to a counterfactual additional shock), is larger than the highest empirical estimates of the multiplier during recessions. The only circumstance in which we can envision this being the case is an environment where long-term bond yields are capped and remain at zero, alongside short-term interest rates, as the economy improves. The IMF has provided a simple rule of thumb approach to estimating the fiscal multiplier for a given country. The IMF’s approach involves first estimating the multiplier under normal circumstances based on a series of key structural characteristics that have been shown to influence the economy’s response to fiscal shocks. Then, the “normal” multiplier is adjusted higher or lower depending on the stage of the business cycle, and whether monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB. For the US, the IMF’s approach suggests that a multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 is reasonable, assuming the highest cyclical adjustment but no ZLB adjustment (see Box 1 for a description of the calculation). Given the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we are inclined to use the low end of this range (1.1) as a conservative assumption when judging whether fiscal responses to the crisis are sufficient. For investors, this means that governments should be aiming, at a minimum, for fiscal packages that are roughly 90% of the size of the expected shock of their economies, using our US fiscal multiplier assumption as a guide. Box 1The 'Bucket' Approach To Estimating Fiscal Multipliers The Composition Of The Response: Helping Or Hurting? The last of our four questions deals with the issue of composition and whether the form of a country’s fiscal response is likely to alter its effectiveness. We implicitly addressed the first element of composition, whether measures are above-the-line or below-the-line, by comparing Charts 1 - 3 on pages 3-5. Our view is that above-the-line measures are far more important than below-the-line measures, as the former provides direct income and liquidity support. Below-the-line measures are also important, as they are likely to help reduce business failure and household bankruptcies. The fiscal multiplier on these measures has to be above zero, but it is likely to be much lower than that of an above-the-line response. Chart 6Much Of The US Fiscal Response Is Going To Households And Small Businesses The second element of composition concerns the appropriate distribution of aid among households, businesses, and local governments. On this particular question, it remains extremely challenging to analyze the issue on a global basis, owing to a frequent lack of an explicit breakdown of fiscal measures by recipient. For now, we limit our distributional analysis to the US, and hope to expand our approach to other countries in future research. Chart 6 presents a breakdown of the US fiscal response by recipient, which informs the following observations. Households: Chart 6 highlights that US households will receive approximately $600 billion as part of the CARES Act, roughly half of which will occur through direct payments (i.e. “stimulus checks”) and another 40% from expanded unemployment benefits. In cases where the federal household response has been criticized by members of the public as inadequate, it has often been compared to income support programs of other countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) is a good example of a program that seems, at first blush, to be superior: it provides $2,000 CAD in direct payments to individuals for a 4 week period, for up to 16 weeks (i.e. a maximum of $8,000 CAD), which seems better than a $1,200 USD stimulus check. However, Table 4 highlights that this comparison is mostly spurious. First, the CERB is not universal, in that it is only available to those who have stopped or will stop working due to COVID-19. At a projected cost of $35 billion CAD, the CERB program represents 1.5% of Canadian GDP. By comparison, $600 billion USD in overall household support represents 2.75% of US GDP; this number drops to 1.75% when only considering support to those who have lost their jobs, but this is still higher as a share of the economy than in Canada. Moreover, there is little question that Congress is prepared to pass more stimulus for additional weeks of required assistance.   Table 4US Household Relief Is Just As Generous As Seemingly Better Programs The discrepancy between the perception and reality of US household sector support appears to be rooted in the speed of payments. Speed is the one area where Canada’s household sector response appears to have legitimately outperformed the US; CERB payments are received by applicants within three business days for those registered for electronic payment, and in some cases they are received the following day. By contrast, it has taken some time for US States to start paying out the additional $600 USD per week in expanded unemployment benefits, but as of the middle of last week nearly all states had started making these payments.   Firms: On April 16 the Small Business Administration announced that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) had expended its initial budget of $350 billion. While additional funds of $320 billion have subsequently been approved (plus $60 billion in small business emergency loans and grants), the run on PPP funds was, to some investors, an implicit sign that the CARES Act was inadequately structured.   Table 5Help For Small Businesses Will Replace A Significant Amount Of Lost Income However, the fact that the initial funds ran out in mid-April simply reflects the reality that social distancing measures had been in place for 3-4 weeks by the time that the program began taking applications. Table 5 highlights that $350 billion was large enough to replace nearly 90% of lost small business income for one month, assuming that overall small business revenue has fallen by 50% and that small businesses account for 44% of total GDP. The table also shows that a combined total of $730 billion is enough to replace almost 80% of lost small business income for 10 weeks, given these assumptions. With loan forgiveness at least partially tied to small businesses retaining employees on payroll for an 8-week period, the PPP is also essentially an indirect form of household income support. State & Local Governments: The magnitude of support for state & local (S&L) governments appears to be the least-well designed element of the US fiscal response.  The CARES Act provides for $170 billion in support to S&L, which at first blush seems large as it is approximately 25% of S&L current receipts in Q4 2019 (i.e. it stands to cover a 25% loss in revenue for one quarter). However, this does not account for the significant reported increase in S&L costs to combat the pandemic, nor does it provide S&L governments with any revenue certainty beyond June 30 when most of the assistance from CARES must be spent.   Chart 7Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Unlike households or firms, who also face significant uncertainty, nearly all US states are subject to balanced budget requirements, which prevent them from spending more than they collect in revenue. When faced even with projected revenue losses in the second half of this year and into 2021, states are likely to aggressively and immediately cut costs in order to avoid budgetary shortfalls. Chart 7 highlights that S&L austerity was a significant element of the persistent drag on real GDP growth from overall government expenditure and investment in the first 3-4 years of the post-GFC economic expansion. A repeat of this episode would significantly raise the odds of an “L-type” recession (and thus should certainly be avoided). This is why Congress is moving to pass larger state and local aid. Our Geopolitical Strategy team argues that neither President Trump nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will prevent the additional financial assistance that US states will require, despite their rhetoric about states going bankrupt.3 A near-term, temporary standoff may occur, but Washington will almost certainly act to provide at least additional short-term funding if state employment starts to fall due to budget pressure. So while we recognize that the state & local component of the US fiscal response is currently lacking, it does not seem likely to represent a serious threat to an eventual economic recovery in the US. Putting It All Together: Will It Be Enough? Chart 8 reproduces Chart 3 with an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.1, and with shaded regions denoting the likely initial and total impact on GDP from aggressive containment measures (based on the OECD and BIS’ estimates). Based on our analysis of the US fiscal response, we make no adjustments for the composition of the measures beyond defining the fiscal response on a narrow basis (i.e. excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals). The chart highlights that the narrowly-defined fiscal response of three key economies driving global demand, the US, China, and Germany, is either at the upper end or above the total impact range. Thus, for now, we tentatively conclude that the fiscal response that has or will happen appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event, especially since Chart 8 explicitly excludes below-the-line measures. Chart 8Several Important Countries Seem To Be Doing Enough, But More Is Needed In Europe Ex-Germany However, there are two important caveats to this conclusion. First, Chart 8 makes it clear that measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Italy and France have provided a substantial below-the-line response, but it is far from clear that a debt-based response or one that only temporarily improves access to cash for households and businesses will be enough to prevent a prolonged fallout from the sudden stop in economic activity and income. Second, our analysis suggests that the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year or if these measures remain in place at half-strength for many months. This underscores how sensitive the adequacy of announced fiscal measures are to the amount of time economies remain under full or partial lockdown. As such, it is crucial for investors to have some sense of when advanced economies may be able to sustainably end aggressive containment measures. When Can The Lockdowns Sustainably End? Several countries and US states have already announced some reductions in their restrictions, but the question of how comprehensive these measures can be without risking a second period of prolonged stay-at-home orders looms large. Table 6 presents two different methods of estimating sustainable lockdown end dates for several advanced economies. First, we use the “70-day rule” that appears to have succeeded in ending the outbreak in Wuhan, calculated from the first day that either school or work closures took effect in each country.4 Second, using a linear trend from the peak 5-day moving average of confirmed cases and fatalities, we calculate when confirmed cases and fatalities may reach zero. Table 6By Re-Opening Soon, The US May Be Risking A Damaging Second Wave The table highlights that these methods generally prescribe a reopening date of May 31 or earlier, with a few exceptions. The UK’s confirmed case count and fatality trends are still too shallow to suggest an end of May re-opening, as is the case in Canada. In the case of Sweden, no projections can truly be made based on the 70-day rule because closures never formally occurred. But the most problematic point highlighted in Table 6 is that US newly confirmed cases are only currently projected to fall to zero as of February 2021. Chart 9 highlights that while new cases per capita in New York state are much higher than in the rest of the country, they are declining whereas they have yet to clearly peak elsewhere. Cross-country case comparisons can be problematic due to differences in testing, but with several US states having already begun the gradual re-opening process, this underscores that US policymakers may be allowing a dangerous rise in the odds of a secondary infection wave. Chart 9No Clear Downtrend Yet Outside Of New York State Investment Conclusions Our core conclusion that an “L-shaped” global recession is likely to be avoided is generally bullish for equities on a 12-month horizon. However, uncertainty remains extremely elevated, and the recent rise in stock prices in the US (and globally) has been at least partially based on the expectation that lockdowns will sustainably end soon, which at least in the case of the US appears to be a premature conclusion given the current lack of large-scale virus testing capacity. As such, we are less optimistic towards risky assets tactically, and would recommend a neutral stance over a 0-3 month horizon. As noted above, our cross-country comparison of narrowly-defined fiscal measures suggested that euro area countries (excluding Germany) will likely have to do more in order to prevent a long period of below-trend growth. In the case of highly-indebted countries like Italy, this raises the additional question of whether a significantly increased debt-to-GDP ratio stemming from an aggressive fiscal impulse will cause another euro area sovereign debt crisis similar to what occurred from 2010-2014. Chart 10Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Government debts are sustainable as long as interest rates remain below economic growth, and from this vantage point Italy should spend as much as needed in order to ensure that nominal growth remains above current long-term government bond yields. Chart 10 highlights that, despite a widening spread versus German bunds, Italian 10-year yields are much lower today than they were during the worst of the euro area crisis, meaning that the debt sustainability hurdle is technically lower. However, we have also noted in previous reports that high-debt countries often face multiple government debt equilibria; if global investors become fearful that that high-debt countries may not be able to repay their obligations without defaulting or devaluing, then a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur via sharply higher interest rates (Chart 11). Chart 11Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort For now, we view the risk of a renewed Italian debt crisis from significantly increased spending related to COVID-19 as minimal, and it is certainly lower than the status quo as the latter risks causing a sharp gap between nominal growth and bond yields like what occurred from 2010 – 2014. First, Chart 12 highlights that Italy has succeeded in somewhat reducing its structural balance, which averaged -4% for many years prior to the euro area crisis. Assuming an adequate global response to the crisis and that economic recovery ensues, it is not clear why global bond investors would be concerned that Italian structural deficits would persistently widen. Second, the ECB is purchasing Italian government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which will help cap the level of Italian yields. Third, Chart 13 shows what will occur to Italy’s government debt service ratio (general government net interest payments as a percent of GDP) in a scenario where Italy’s gross debt to GDP rises a full 20 percentage points and the ratio of net interest payments to debt remains unchanged. The chart shows that while debt service will rise, it will still be lower than at any point prior to 2015. Chart 12Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Chart 13Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged   So not only should Italy spend significantly more to combat the severely damaging nature of the pandemic, we would expect that Italian spreads would fall, not rise, in such an outcome.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 “Skeptical economists call Japan’s largest-ever stimulus package ‘puffed-up’, Keita Nakamura, The Japan Times, April 8, 2020. 2 Please note that Chart 3 differs somewhat from a chart that has been frequently shown by our Geopolitical Strategy service. Both charts are accurate; they simply employ different definitions of the fiscal response to the pandemic. 3 Indeed, McConnell has already walked back his comments that states should consider bankruptcy. President Trump is constrained by the election, as are Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats control the purse strings. Hence more state and local funding is forthcoming. At best for the Republicans, there may be provisions to ensure it goes to the COVID-19 crisis rather than states’ unfunded pension obligations. See Geopolitical Strategy, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update),” April 24, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 School and work closure dates have been sources from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

Highlights Social distancing makes it impossible to do jobs that require close personal interaction, yet these are the very job sectors that have kept jobs growth alive in recent decades. If social distancing persists, then AI will penetrate these job sectors too. Aggregate wage inflation is set to collapse – not just temporarily, but structurally. Structurally overweight US T-bonds versus the core European bonds in Germany, France, Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden. Structurally overweight big technology, structurally underweight banks. Structurally overweight S&P 500 versus Euro Stoxx 50. Fractal trade: long Australian 30-year bond versus US 30-year T-bond. Feature Social distancing will feature large in our lives for the foreseeable future, and it carries a profound consequence. Social distancing really means physical distancing. And physical distancing diminishes the ways that we can interact with other humans – through the qualities of empathy, sympathy, the ability to recognise and respond to emotional cues, and to express ourselves through complex movements. You cannot hug someone on Facetime. Social distancing makes it impossible to do jobs that require close personal interaction. From an economic perspective, social distancing makes it impossible to do jobs that require close personal interaction. It follows that in the recent bloodbath of job losses, the biggest casualties have been in employment sectors that rely on this close personal interaction: food services and drinking places (waitresses, bartenders, and baristas), ambulatory healthcare services, hotels, and social assistance (Table I-1). Table I-1Social Distancing Is Destroying Jobs That Require Close Personal Interaction A profound consequence arises because these are the very sectors that have kept jobs growth alive in recent decades (Table I-2). Millions of new jobs that rely on close personal interaction have more than offset the structural job destruction in manufacturing and finance. As well as being export-proof, jobs that require this close personal interaction have been ‘artificial intelligence (AI) proof’. That is, until now. Table I-2Jobs That Require Close Personal Interaction Have Been The Engine Of Jobs Growth One UK doctor told the New York Times “we’re basically witnessing 10 years of change in one week”. Before the virus, online consultations made up only 1 percent of doctors’ appointments. But now, three in four UK patients are seeing their doctor remotely. Moravec’s Paradox + Social Distancing = A Very Tough Jobs Market Regular readers will know that one of our mega-themes is the far-reaching societal and economic implications of Moravec’s Paradox. Named after the professor of robotics, Hans Moravec, the paradox points out that: For AI the hard things are easy, but the easy things are hard. By the hard things, we mean things that require ‘narrow-frame pattern recognition’ within a defined body of knowledge. For example, playing chess, translating languages, diagnosing medical conditions, and analysing legal problems. We find these tasks hard, but AI finds them effortless. By the easy things, we mean our social skills: empathy, sympathy, the ability to recognise and respond to emotional cues, and to express ourselves through complex movements. To us, all these things are second nature, but AI finds them very hard to replicate. The reason, it turns out, is that the higher brain that enables us to learn and play chess and solve similar abstract problems evolved relatively recently. Whereas the ancient lower brain that enables complex movement and the associated giving and receiving of emotional signals took much longer to evolve. As AI is just reverse engineering the human brain, AI has found it easy to replicate the less-evolved higher brain functions, but very difficult to replicate the skills that emanate from the deeply evolved lower brain. Millions of new jobs that rely on close personal interaction have more than offset the structural job destruction in manufacturing and finance. The far-reaching societal and economic implication is that we have misunderstood and mispriced what is difficult and what is easy. By reverse engineering the brain, AI is correcting this mispricing. So far, AI has been most disruptive to high-paying jobs requiring abstract problem-solving skills, such as in finance. AI has been less disruptive to jobs requiring close personal interaction (Table I-3). But if social distancing persists, then AI will disrupt those jobs too, especially during a recession. Table I-3New Jobs That Require Close Personal Interaction Have Offset Lost Jobs In Manufacturing And Finance Labour Market Disruption Intensifies During A Recession To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, industries adopt labour-saving technologies gradually then suddenly. And the suddenly tends to be during a recession. This is because once an industry has already shed many workers, it is easier to restructure the industry with a new labour-saving technology that reduces labour input permanently. At the start of the Great Depression a substantial part of the US automobile industry was still based on skilled craftsmanship. These smaller, less productive craft-production plants were the ones that shut down permanently, while plants that had adopted labour-saving mass production had the competitive advantage that enabled them to survive. The result was a major restructuring of the auto productive structure. Likewise, until the late 1990s, the ‘typing pool’ was a ubiquitous feature of the office environment. But once the 2000 downturn arrived, these typing jobs became extinct to be replaced by the wholesale roll-out of Microsoft Word. After the 2008-09 recession, UK economic power became focussed in a few large firms that could access the finance to ensure their survival. As small firms went by the wayside, job growth came disproportionately from self-employment and the ‘gig economy’. In this case, the labour market disruption hurt productivity as an army of freelancers ended up doing their own sales, marketing and accounts in which they had no specialism (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1The 1990s UK Recovery Produced No Increase In Self-Employment... Chart I-2...But The 2010s UK Recovery Produced A Huge Increase In Self-Employment The point is that all recessions produce major structural changes in the labour market and the current recession will be no different. If social distancing persists, it will nullify the social skill advantage that humans have over AI. Therefore, one structural change will be that AI disrupts the more ‘human’ job sectors that have so far escaped its penetration. All recessions produce major structural changes in the labour market. To repeat, labour market disruption arrives suddenly. Within the space of a few weeks, most UK patients have switched to receiving their medical care online or by telephone. Admittedly, the patients are still ‘seeing’ a human doctor, but the question and answer consultations are a classic example of narrow-frame pattern recognition. Meaning that it would be a small step to upgrade the human doctor to the superior diagnosis from AI. And if AI can produce a superior diagnosis to your human doctor, why can’t AI also produce a a superior legal analysis to your human lawyer? The Investment Implications Even when the labour market seemed to be humming and unemployment rates were at multi-decade lows, aggregate wage inflation was anaemic (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). A major reason was the hollowing out of high paying jobs and substitution with low paying jobs. Now that unemployment rates are surging, and AI is penetrating even more job sectors, aggregate wage inflation is set to collapse – not just temporarily, but structurally. Chart I-3Unemployment Rates Have Been At Multi-Decade Lows... Chart I-4...But Wage Inflation Has Been ##br##Anaemic This leads to the following investment implications: 1. All bond yields will gravitate to their lower bound, so any bond yield that can go lower will go lower. 2. It follows that bond investors should continue to overweight US T-bonds versus the core European bonds in Germany, France, Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Any Bond Yield That Can Go Lower Will Go Lower 3. Underweight banks structurally. Depressed and flattening yield curves combined with shrinking demand for private credit constitutes a strong headwind. Banks are now underperforming in both up markets and in down markets (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Banks Are Underperforming In Both Up Markets And Down Markets 4. Overweight technology structurally. As AI penetrates even more job sectors, the superstar companies of big tech will continue to thrive. The duopoly of Apple and Google are designing proximity-tracking apps for every smartphone in the world. Big tech is laying down the law to governments, and there is not even a hint of antitrust suits. Tech is now outperforming in both up markets and in down markets (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Tech Is Outperforming In Both Up Markets And Down Markets 5. Finally, if big tech outperforms banks, the sector composition of the S&P 500 versus the Euro Stoxx 50 makes it inevitable that the US equity market will structurally outperform the euro area equity market (Chart I-8). Chart I-8If Big Tech Outperforms Banks, The S&P 500 Must Outperform The Euro Stoxx 50 Fractal Trading System* The steep decline in the US 30-year T-bond yield means that it has crossed below the Australian 30-year bond yield for the first time in recent history. Resulting from this dynamic, this week’s recommended trade is long the Australian 30-year bond versus the US 30-year T-bond. Set the profit target at 9 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. Chart I-930-Year Govt. Bonds: Australia Vs. US In other trades, long IBEX versus Euro Stoxx 600 hit its 3 percent stop-loss, while long nickel versus copper is half way to its 11 percent profit target. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 63 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Stay tactically neutral to equities. The market may meet some short-term resistance, especially as a slew of poor earnings are released in the coming weeks. The long-term threat to equities comes from the pandemic’s lasting after-effects, such as financial and corporate distress, and/or a political backlash against the private sector. Long-term investors should prefer equities over bonds, with the caveat that the threat does not materialise. Long-term equity investors should avoid oil and gas and European banks at all costs… …but healthcare, European personal products, and European clothes and accessories should all form core long-term holdings. Fractal trade: long nickel / short copper. Feature Chart of the WeekSales Per Share Must 'Catch Down' With GDP, Just Like In 2008 The sharp snapback rally in stock markets has reached an important resistance point – the critical Fibonacci level of a 38.2 percent proportionate retracement of the sell-off.1 Technical analysts define the sell-off in terms of the most recent peak to trough. But we define it differently. We define it in terms of the longest time horizon of investors that capitulated at the sell-off. The market may meet some short-term resistance. The longest time horizon of investors that capitulated at the sell-off’s climax on March 18 was a seven-quarter horizon. Hence, we define the sell-off as the seven-quarter decline to March 18. On that basis, and using the DAX as our benchmark, we would expect the index to meet resistance at around a 21 percent retracement rally from the March 18 low. Which is pretty much where the DAX stands right now (Chart I-2).2 Chart I-22020 Low: A Seven-Quarter Capitulation Followed By A Fibonacci Retracement After A Sharp Snapback Rally What Happens Next? The maximum length of investment horizons that capitulated on March 18 was unusually long at seven quarters. This should comfort long-term investors because of an important investment identity: Financial markets have fully priced a downturn when the longest time horizon of investors that have capitulated = the length of the downturn. So, the good news is that the March 18 bottom should hold if the downturn does not last longer than seven quarters. In this regard, the main risk of a protracted downturn comes not from the pandemic itself. Even if the pandemic returns in second and third waves, any economic shutdowns, full or partial, should last considerably less than seven quarters. Instead, the main risk comes from lasting after-effects, such as financial and corporate distress, and/or a political backlash against the private sector. The long-term threat comes from the pandemic’s after-effects on economic and political systems. But a protracted downturn of what? As we are focussing on the stock market, the downturn is not of GDP per se but its stock market equivalent: sales per share. In the long run, sales per share and GDP advance at the same rate. But the sector compositions of the stock market and GDP are not the same, so over shorter periods sales per share can underperform or outperform GDP. In which case, sales per share must catch up or catch down (Chart of the Week). In 2008, sales per share had to catch down. As a result, world sales per share declined for seven quarters through 2008-10, considerably longer than the decline in GDP (Chart I-3). Hence, the stock market found its bottom in early March 2009 when the longest time horizon of investors that had capitulated had reached seven quarters (Chart I-4). Chart I-32008-10: Sales Per Share Fell For Seven Quarters Chart I-42009 Low: A Seven-Quarter Capitulation Followed By A Fibonacci Retracement From this March 2009 bottom, the Fibonacci retracement equated to a 35 percent advance, which the market achieved by early June 2009. Thereafter, stocks met short-term resistance and gave back some of the snapback rally. Fast forward to 2020. Having likewise reached the Fibonacci retracement, the market may meet some short-term resistance, especially as a slew of poor earnings are released in the coming weeks. Assuming no lasting after-effects from financial distress or political backlash, the next sustained advance will happen later this year. Valuations Flatter Equities, But They Still Beat Bonds Turning to long-term investors the three most important things are: valuation, valuation, and valuation. Our favourite valuation measure is price to sales, which has been a good predictor of 10-year prospective returns going back to at least the 1980s (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Price To Sales Might Over-Estimate Prospective Returns In 2020, Just Like In 2008 But the predictive power depends on a crucial underlying assumption – that the past is a good guide to the future. Specifically, today we must assume that the pandemic causes just a brief blip in the multi-decade uptrend in stock market sales and profits. To repeat, the main long-term threat to stock markets comes not from the pandemic itself. The long-term threat comes from the pandemic’s after-effects on economic and political systems – such as crippled banking systems or large-scale nationalisations of the private sector. Furthermore, price to sales will err in its prediction if sales per share have deviated from GDP – implying either a future catch up or catch down. In the 1990s sales per share had underperformed GDP, so future returns outperformed the valuation prediction. However, in 2008 sales per share had outperformed GDP, so future returns underperformed the prediction. Today, just as in 2008, sales per share have become overstretched relative to GDP, so there will be a catch down. Which will weigh down prospective returns relative to what valuations appear to imply. Still, even adjusting for this, equities are likely to produce annualised nominal returns in the mid-single digits, comfortably higher than the yields on long-term government bonds. Hence, with the caveat that the pandemic does not generate lasting after-effects for economic and political systems, long-term investors should prefer equities over bonds. What Not To Buy, And What To Buy If a stock, sector, or stock market maintains a structural uptrend in sales and profits, then a big drop in the share price provides an excellent buying opportunity for long-term investors. In this case, the lower share price is stretching the elastic between the price and the up-trending profits, resulting in an eventual snap upwards. However, if sales and profits are in terminal decline, then the sell-off is not a buying opportunity other than on a tactical basis. This is because the elastic will lose its tension as profits drift down towards the lower price. In fact, despite the sell-off, if the profit downtrend continues, the elastic may be forced to snap downwards! Do not buy sectors whose profits are in major downtrends. This leads to a somewhat counterintuitive conclusion for long-term investors. After a big drop in the stock market, do not buy everything that has dropped. And do not buy the stocks and sectors that have dropped the most if their profits are in major downtrends. Specifically, the profits of oil and gas and European banks are in major structural downtrends (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Long-term equity investors should avoid these sectors at all costs. Chart I-6Oil And Gas Profits In A Major ##br##Downtrend Chart I-7European Banks Profits In A Major Downtrend Conversely, the profits of healthcare, European personal products, and European clothes and accessories are all in major structural uptrends (Chart I-8 - Chart I-10). As such, all three sectors should be core holdings for all long-term equity investors. Chart I-8Healthcare Profits In A ##br##Major Uptrend Chart I-9European Personal Products Profits In A Major Uptrend Chart I-10European Clothing Profits In A Major Uptrend Fractal Trading System* Given the outsized moves in markets over the past month, all assets have become highly correlated making it more difficult to find candidates for trend reversals. Chart I-11Nickel Vs. Copper However, we find that some relative moves within the commodity complex have not correlated with risk on/off. Specifically, the underperformance of nickel versus copper is technically stretched, so this week’s recommended trade is long nickel / short copper, setting a profit target of 11 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 67 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 0.382 = 1- phi. Where phi is the Golden Ratio, defined as the ratio of successive Fibonacci numbers in the limit. Alternatively, phi =1 / (1 + phi). 2 The seven-quarter sell-off in the DAX (capital only) to March 18 2020 was 39.4 percent, so a full retracement rally equals 65.1 percent, and a 0.382 geometric retracement equals 21.1 percent. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights US Corporates: The Fed continues to expand the reach of its extraordinary monetary policies designed to combat the COVID-19 recession, now giving itself the ability to hold BB-rated US high-yield bonds within its corporate bond buying programs. Raise allocations to US BB-rated corporates to overweight, within a neutral overall strategic (6-12 months) allocation to US high-yield. Euro Area Corporates: European investment grade corporate debt has seen significant spread widening over the past month, but spreads have stabilized with the ECB introducing a new asset purchase program with fewer restrictions. Upgrade euro area investment grade corporates to neutral from underweight on both a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Favor debt from beaten-up sectors that are already priced for severe economic weakness like Energy, Transportation and non-bank Financials. Central Banks Are A Corporate Bond Investor’s Best Friend Right Now Chart of the WeekThe Fed & ECB Are Supporting Bond Markets The actions of policymakers worldwide to help mitigate the severe economic shock from the COVID-19 recession have helped boost global risk assets over the past couple of weeks. This is particularly notable in US corporate bond markets, where credit spreads have tightened for both shorter-maturity investment grade bonds and Ba-rated high-yield (Chart of the Week). It is not a coincidence that those are the parts of the US corporate bond market that the Fed is now explicitly backstopping through its off-balance-sheet investment programs. Last week, the Fed unveiled yet another “bazooka” to help ease US financial conditions, broadening the scope of its previously investment grade-only corporate bond purchase programs to include Ba-rated high-yield corporate bonds and high-yield ETFs. In Europe, meanwhile, the European Central Bank (ECB) is also providing additional monetary support through increased asset purchases of both government and corporate debt. Those purchases are focused more on the weakest links in the euro area financial and economic chain like Italian sovereign bonds. This has helped to stabilize credit spreads for both Italian government bonds and euro area investment grade corporate debt. This support from policymakers is critical to prevent a further tightening of financial conditions during a severe global recession (Chart 2). The excess return (over government bonds) for the Bloomberg Barclays global high-yield bond index is now down 15% on a year-over-year basis. High-yield corporate bond spreads are well above the lows seen earlier this year on both sides of the Atlantic, across all credit quality tiers. In the US, spreads between credit quality tiers had widened to levels not seen in several years. Within the US investment grade universe, the gap between Baa-rated and Aa-rated spreads had widened from 20bps to 60bps (Chart 3), a level last seen in September 2011, but now sits at 39bps. Chart 2Junk Bonds Already Discount A Big Recession Chart 3The Fed Wants These Spreads To Tighten Looking in the other direction of the credit quality spectrum, the spread between Baa-rated and Ba-rated corporates – the line of demarcation between investment grade and high-yield bonds – had blown out from 132bps in February to 556bps, but is now at 360bps. This is the market pricing in the growing risk of fallen angels being downgraded from investment grade to junk. In our view, the Ba-Baa spread is the best indicator to follow to see if the Fed’s extension of its bond purchase program to high-yield is working to reduce borrowing costs for lower-rated US companies. Both in the US and Europe, we continue to recommend a credit investment strategy that favors the parts of the markets that the Fed and ECB are most directly involved in now. That means staying overweight US investment grade corporate bonds with maturities of less than five years (the Fed’s maturity limit for its bond buying program). It also means staying overweight Italian government debt versus core European equivalents. The Fed’s new extension into high-yield corporates within its buying programs means we need to upgrade our recommendation on US BB-rated high-yield to overweight within our recommended neutral strategic (6-12 months) allocation to US junk bonds. We are making that change on a tactical basis in our model bond portfolio, as well, as can be seen on pages 14-15. As the title of this Weekly Report suggests, buy what the central banks are buying. The Fed’s new extension into high-yield corporates within its buying programs means we need to upgrade our recommendation on US BB-rated high-yield to overweight within our recommended neutral strategic (6-12 months) allocation to US junk bonds. In Europe, there is now scope to also raise allocations to euro area corporate bonds, as well, as we discuss over the remainder of this report. Bottom Line: The Fed continues to expand the reach of its extraordinary monetary policies designed to combat the COVID-19 recession, now giving itself the ability to hold BB-rated US high-yield bonds within its corporate bond buying programs. Raise allocations to US BB-rated corporates to overweight within a neutral overall strategic (6-12 months) allocation to US high-yield. Looking For Value In Euro Area Investment Grade Bonds The outlook for euro area spread product does not have as clean-cut a story as is the case for US credit. The ECB is not explicitly supporting European corporate credit markets to the same degree as the Fed is with its open-ended off-balance sheet investment vehicles. While the ECB has introduced a new large €750bn asset purchase program, the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP), to help ease financial conditions in the euro area, no specific details have yet been provided specifying how much of the PEPP will go towards corporate debt versus sovereign bonds. The ECB has already loosened the country and issuer limit restrictions it has imposed on its existing Asset Purchase Program (APP), however, which means that the central bank will be very flexible with the PEPP purchases. That means helping reduce sovereign risk premiums in Peripheral Europe by buying greater amounts of Italian, Spanish and even Greek government debt. That also likely means buying more corporate debt in the most stressed sectors of the euro area economy, as needed. Greater ECB bond purchases would make euro area investment grade credit – which has seen some value restored after the recent bout of spread widening - more attractive over both tactical and strategic investment horizons. This is true even with much of the euro area now in a deep recession because of COVID-19 lockdowns, which has already been discounted in the poor investment performance of euro area corporates. Greater ECB bond purchases would make euro area investment grade credit – which has seen some value restored after the recent bout of spread widening - more attractive over both tactical and strategic investment horizons. Year-to-date, euro area corporate credit markets have been hit hard by the global credit selloff (Table 1). In total return terms denominated in euros, the Bloomberg Barclays euro area investment grade corporate bond index is down -5.0% so far in 2020. The numbers are slightly better relative to duration-matched euro area government bonds (the pure credit component), with the index excess return down -5.5% year-to-date. At the broad sector level, the laggards so far in 2020 have been the sectors most exposed to the sharp downturn in European (and global) economic growth. In excess return terms, the worst performing sectors year-to-date within the eleven major groupings shown in Table 1 have been Consumer Cyclicals (-8.5%), Transportation (-8.1%), Energy (-7.2%). The best performing sectors are those that would be categorized as less cyclical and more “defensive”, like Utilities (-4.3%), Technology (-4.3%) and Financials (-4.7%). In many ways, this is a mirror image of 2019, when Consumer Cyclicals and Transportation were among the top performers while Technology was the worst performer. Table 1Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Bond Returns Chart 4Euro Area Corporate Spreads Are Relatively Subdued Vs. Past Credit Cycles When looking at the differences in spreads between credit tiers in the euro area, the gaps are not as wide as in the US (Chart 4). The index spread on Baa-rated euro area corporates is only 44bps above that of Aa-rated credit, far below the 100bps gap seen at the peak of the 2001 and 2011 spread widening episodes and well below the 200bps witnessed in 2008. Looking at the difference between Ba-rated and Baa-rated euro area spreads paints a similar picture, with the gap between the highest high-yield credit tier and lowest investment grade credit tier now sitting at 297bps after getting as wide as 431bps in late March – close to the 500bps peak seen in 2011 but far below the 1000bps levels seen in 2001 and 2007 The broad conclusion looking strictly at credit tiers is that euro area corporates have cheapened up a bit during the COVID-19 selloff, but on a more modest scale compared to previous euro area credit cycles. A similar conclusion is reached when looking at industry-level credit spreads. The broad conclusion looking strictly at credit tiers is that euro area corporates have cheapened up a bit during the COVID-19 selloff, but on a more modest scale compared to previous euro area credit cycles. A similar conclusion is reached when looking at industry-level credit spreads. In Charts 5 & 6, we show the history of option-adjusted spreads (OAS) for the major industrial sub-groupings of the Bloomberg Barclays euro area investment grade corporate indices. Unsurprisingly, spreads look relatively wide for the biggest underperforming sectors like Energy, Consumer Cyclicals and Transportation. The spread widening has been more contained in the better performing sectors like Technology. Chart 5A Mixed Performance For Euro Area Investment Grade Spreads By Industry … Chart 6…. With Spreads Well Below 2001 And 2008 Credit Cycle Peaks When looking at the individual country corporate bond indices within the euro area, the current levels of spreads do not look particularly wide in an historical context. In Chart 7, we show a bar chart of the range of index OAS for the six largest euro area countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria). The current OAS is shown within that historical range. The chart shows that current spreads are in the middle of that range for most countries, suggesting some better value has been restored by the COVID-19 selloff but with spreads remaining relatively subdued compared to past euro area credit cycles.1 Chart 7Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Spreads By Country On a relative basis, investment grade spreads are tightest in France (203bps), the Netherlands (202bps) and Belgium (226bps), and widest in Germany (255bps), Italy (255bps), Austria (251bps) and Spain (234bps). With the ECB already promising greater flexibility in the country allocations of its sovereign bond purchases within the PEPP, Italian corporates may offer the best value within the major euro area countries. With the ECB already promising greater flexibility in the country allocations of its sovereign bond purchases within the PEPP, Italian corporates may offer the best value within the major euro area countries. We can get a better sense of relative corporate bond spread valuation at the country level by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings of those spreads. This is one of the tools we use to assess value in global credit spreads, as measured by historical “spread cushions”. Specifically, we calculate how much spread widening is required over a one-year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds versus duration-matched government debt. We then show those breakeven spreads as a percentile ranking versus its own history, to allow comparisons over periods with differing underlying spread volatility. In Charts 8 & 9, we show the 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings for Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Austria. On this basis, the current level of spreads looks most historically attractive in Germany, Italy and France, with the breakeven spread in the upper quartile versus its history dating back to the year 2000. Spreads in Spain, Belgium and Austria also look relatively wide versus their own history, but to a lesser extent than in Germany, France and Italy. Chart 8German, Italian & French Investment Grade Corporates Offer Better Value On A Breakeven Spread Basis …. Chart 9… Than Spanish, Belgian & Austrian Investment Grade Corporates Chart 10Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Spreads Are Relatively Wide Across All Credit Tiers So while there are some modest differences in value to exploit within the euro area investment grade corporate bond universe at the country level, there is less to choose from across credit tiers. The 12-month breakeven spreads for Aaa-rated, Aa-rated, A-rated and Baa-rated euro area corporates are all within the upper quartiles of their own history (Chart 10). One other tool we can use to assess value across euro area investment grade corporates is our sector relative value framework. Borrowing from the methodology used by our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy to assess US investment grade corporates, the sector relative value framework determines “fair value” spreads for each of the major and minor industry level sub-indices of the overall euro area investment grade universe. The methodology takes each sector's individual OAS and regresses it in a cross-sectional regression with all other sectors. The independent variables in the model are each sector's duration, trailing 12-month spread volatility, and credit rating - the primary risk factors for any corporate bond. Using the common coefficients from that regression, a risk-adjusted "fair value" spread is calculated. The difference between the actual OAS and fair value OAS is our valuation metric used to inform our sector allocation ranking. The latest output from the euro area relative value spread model can be found in Table 2. We also show the duration-times-spread (DTS) for each sector in those tables, which we use as the primary way to measure the riskiness (volatility) of each sector. The scatterplot in Chart 11 shows the tradeoff between the valuation residual from our model and each sector's DTS. Table 2Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation We can then apply individual sector weights based on the model output and our desired level of overall spread risk to come up with a recommended credit portfolio. The weights are determined at our discretion and are not the output from any quantitative portfolio optimization process. The only constraints are that all sector weights must add to 100% (i.e. the portfolio is fully invested with no use of leverage) and the overall level of spread risk (DTS) must equal our desired target. The strongest overweight candidates (a DTS score equal to or greater than that of the overall index with the highest positive valuation residual) are the following euro area investment grade sectors: Packaging, Tobacco, Other Industrials, Media Entertainment, Supermarkets, Integrated Energy, Consumer Cyclical Services and all non-bank Financials (Insurance, REITs, Brokerages and Finance Companies). Against the current backdrop of euro area corporate spreads offering relatively wide spreads on a breakeven spread basis, and with the ECB providing a highly accommodative monetary backdrop that includes more purchases of both government and corporate debt, we think targeting an overall portfolio DTS greater than that of the euro area investment grade corporate bond index is reasonable. On that basis, we are looking to go overweight sectors with relatively higher DTS and positive risk-adjusted spread residuals from our relative value model (and vice versa). Those overweight candidates would ideally be located in the upper right quadrant of Chart 11. Chart 11Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Valuation Versus Risk Based on the latest output from the relative value model, the strongest overweight candidates (a DTS score equal to or greater than that of the overall index with the highest positive valuation residual) are the following euro area investment grade sectors: Packaging, Tobacco, Other Industrials, Media Entertainment, Supermarkets, Integrated Energy, Consumer Cyclical Services and all non-bank Financials (Insurance, REITs, Brokerages and Finance Companies). The least attractive sectors within this framework (negative risk-adjusted valuations) are: Senior Bank Debt, Natural Gas, Other Utilities, Metals and Mining, Chemicals, Construction Machinery, Lodging, Cable and Satellite, Restaurants, Food/Beverage, Health Care, Oil Field Services, Building Materials and Aerospace/Defense. Bottom Line: European investment grade corporate debt has seen significant spread widening over the past month, but spreads should stabilize with the ECB introducing a new asset purchase program with fewer restrictions. Upgrade euro area investment grade corporates to neutral from underweight on both a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Favor debt from beaten-up sectors that are already priced for severe economic weakness like Energy, Transportation and non-bank Financials.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For the Netherlands, there is a much shorter history of corporate bond index data available from Bloomberg Barclays than the other euro area countries shown in Chart 7. The OAS range only encompasses about seven years of data, while the other countries go back as far as the early 2000s. 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 The near-term is fraught with risk for US equities and global risk assets. Investors concerned over uncertainty, a slow recovery, and economic aftershocks must also guard against geopolitics. COVID-19 is not a victory for dictatorship over democracies. Democracies face voters and will ultimately improve government effectiveness. President Trump is likely to lose the US election. As this becomes increasingly likely, his policy will turn more aggressive, increasing geopolitical risks – particularly in US-China relations. Stay short CNY-USD. Stay long defense stocks. Feature Chart 1Another Downdraft Is Likely US equity prices have risen 26% since their March 23 low point, but our review of systemic global crises suggests that a re-test of the bottom would not be surprising (Chart 1). A range of mitigating health policies – plus still-growing policy stimulus – will most likely prevent a depression. But a longer than expected economic trough, due to some persistent level of social distancing pre-vaccine, and negative second-order effects, such as emerging market crises, could trigger another wave of selling. Moreover we expect another shoe to drop: geopolitics. A Light At The End Of The Tunnel Governments are starting to get a handle on the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of daily new cases in the European Union, which is most clearly correlated with global equities, has subsided (Chart 2). Chart 2Any Setbacks Will Hit Equity Market Hard The US is also seeing new cases crest. To be safe one should count on a subsidiary spike that could easily set back US equities after a notable stock market rally (Chart 2, second panel). But Europe has shown that social distancing works, which US investors will recognize. Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte is expected to begin the gradual loosening of social controls to restart the economy. Since Italy is the hardest hit of the western nations (second only to Spain), its leaders will not relax lockdown measures unless they are sure they can do so safely (Chart 2, bottom panel). Still, if governments loosen controls too soon, they may have to tighten them again. Uncertainty will therefore persist regarding the pace of economic normalization, which is bound to be slow due to the fact that discretionary spending will remain suppressed, as it is today in China, and the special precautions that at-risk populations like the elderly will have to take. Economic stimulus measures are still growing in size. Japan’s stimulus, which we count at 16% of GDP, is smaller than the headline 20% but still very large. We have long argued that Japan was on the forefront of the move toward debt monetization among developed markets, but COVID-19 has accelerated the paradigm shift. The United Kingdom has now explicitly stated that the Bank of England will directly finance government debt. The Spanish government is proposing Universal Basic Income (UBI), which it hopes to make permanent, rather than merely for the duration of the pandemic. The jury is still out on whether the weak Pedro Sanchez government will be able to pass it but the current is in favor of “whatever it takes.” Italy’s Five Star Movement has long advocated universal basic income and is part of a ruling coalition that has received a wave of popular support to combat the crisis. At present only a more limited “income of emergency” is being legislated, in keeping with the more centrist Democratic Party, a coalition partner. But Italy’s devastation creates the impetus for bolder moves, either by this government or a subsequent government in 2021 or after. The European institutions are backstopping these states, at least for now, so any deeper disagreements about climbing down from stimulus will have to wait until the coming years. The EU itself is likely to announce additional fiscal measures, via the European Stability Mechanism, whose austerity requirements will be waived, and the European Investment Bank. We can see a token agreement on “coronabonds” (joint debt issuance by the Euro Area), but investors should not fixate on the eurobond debate. These would require a new mechanism, which is inexpedient, whereas the existing mechanisms are already sufficient to bankroll the huge deficit spending plans that the member states are already rolling out. The United States is negotiating an additional “phase four” package that could range between $500 billion and $2 trillion, meaning anywhere from 2.5% to 10% of GDP in new measures (Chart 3). Our estimate would err on the high side because it will largely consist of the same key elements as the “phase three” $2.3 trillion package: unemployment benefits and cash to households, plus a larger dollop for local governments than in the last package. Chart 3Fiscal Tsunami Is Still Building Congress is scheduled to return to vote the week of April 20, but an early return is entirely possible if the pandemic worsens. If the infection curve is flattening, then Republican Senators may hold out longer in negotiations. Squabbling would cause temporary agitation in equity markets. The Democrats and the Republicans still have a mutual interest in spending profusely: the Republicans to try to salvage their seats through economic improvement by November; the Democrats to prove their election proposition that a larger role for government is necessary. Finally, China is preparing to announce more stimulus. So far Chinese measures amount to only 3% of GDP but this is insufficient given the weakness in China’s economic rebound thus far. The expansion in quasi-fiscal spending (government-controlled credit expansion) is an open question, but we would guesstimate a minimum of 3% of GDP. Dramatic measures should be expected because China is undergoing the first recessionary environment since the Cultural Revolution and President Xi Jinping risks a monumental economic destabilization if he hesitates to shore up aggregate demand, which would ultimately threaten single-party rule. We see little chance of him making this mistake. The problem is that animal spirits and external demand will remain weak regardless, an occasion for disappointments among bullish equity investors. Moreover US-China geopolitical risks are rising again, as discussed below. Our updated list of fiscal measures for 25 countries can be found in the Appendix. Bottom Line: The pandemic is peaking in the US and EU, while more stimulus is coming. This is positive for equity investors with a 12-month time frame but the near-term remains vulnerable to another selloff. Democracies Are Not Less Effective Than Dictatorships The pandemic has given rise to wildly misleading narratives in the financial community and mainstream media about the political ramifications for different nations. Getting these narratives right is important for one’s investment strategy. The most popular is that China “won” – is expanding its global influence – while the United States “lost” – is failing at global leadership. More broadly the authoritarian eastern model is said to be triumphing over the western democratic model. The real distinction among states is whether they were familiar with pandemics emanating from China, the unreliability of China’s transparency and communications, and the need to track and trace infections from the beginning. Thus South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan have all had relatively benign experiences and all but Vietnam are democracies, with varying degrees of representation and contestation. Nor is COVID-19 an “eastern” versus “western” thing. Germany did an effective job testing, tracking, and tracing infections as well. Germans are relatively law-abiding and trust Chancellor Angela Merkel and the state governments to “do the right thing.” Canada, with its experience of SARS, has also reacted effectively. Denmark, Austria, and the Czech Republic are already tentatively reopening their economies. Yet the number of new confirmed cases per million people shows that Germany is not wildly different from the US and Italy (Chart 4). The truth is that Italy’s bad fortune alerted the US and G7 states to take the threat more seriously – the US has had good outcomes in Washington State but bad outcomes in highly populated New York. Nor is it true that the American health care system is uniquely terrible in treating patients, as is so widely claimed. US deaths per million are worse than Germany but better than Italy (Chart 5) – and Italy’s health system is also not to blame. Failure of ruling parties to spring into decisive action is the main differentiator. Chart 4US In Line With Italy In New Cases … Chart 5… But Better In Limiting Deaths Chart 6Dictatorships Good At Halting Freedoms Dictatorships have had fewer cases and deaths, if their statistics can be trusted – which is a big if.1 This does not suggest that their governance model is better, but rather that they are better at halting freedoms, such as free movement (Chart 6). North Korea has zero cases of COVID-19. People were already under lockdown. Variation within the dictatorships stems from their policy responses and experience fighting pandemics. China, the origin of several recent outbreaks, has extensive experience. It also has a functional health system, fiscal resources, and a heavily centralized power structure. Iran, however, has less experience and capability. The question now is Russia, which was slow to react and has a growing outbreak, yet has a heavily centralized power structure to flatten the curve. Incidentally domestic risk is an important reason for Russia to cooperate with OPEC on oil production cuts, as we have argued. These points can be demonstrated by comparing COVID-19 deaths per million to each nation’s health capabilities and underlying vulnerability to the disease. Note that our intention is to highlight the role of policy in outcomes, not to attempt a full explanation of an epidemiological phenomenon. In Chart 7A, we judge health capacity by health spending per head and life expectancy at the age of 60. Nations that spend a lot per person, and whose people live longer, have better health systems. Yet many of these states are seeing the highest number of deaths because they are European and Europe was the epicenter of the outbreak. Chart 7ARich, Healthy Countries Got Hit Hardest Because Unprepared The US ranks right along with Germany and Sweden.2 Policy responses – early testing, tracking, and tracing – explain why South Korea has far fewer deaths than Italy and Spain on a population-weighted basis. However, the underlying conditions still matter, as the US’s health system, travel bans, and distance from the crisis produced better outcomes than its other policy responses would have implied. These data will be more accurate once the infection curve has flattened across the world. The situation is changing rapidly. If the US rises up in deaths per capita, it will be because of its slow responses, or subsequent policies. The same goes for emerging market economies that are ranking low in deaths but either have not seen the full effect of the pandemic, or had more time to adjust policy due to the crisis in Europe. Emerging market economies have lower health capacity, but also younger and hence healthier populations. The older the society, and the higher proportion of severe illnesses like heart and lung disease, the more susceptible to COVID-19 deaths, as Chart 7B shows. But yet again, the policy response still proves decisive. China has more deaths than some countries that are more vulnerable, because it got hit first. If Brazil and Turkey rise higher and higher above China in deaths, as is likely, it is because of policy failure, not basic vulnerability. Chart 7BEurope And US: Vulnerable Populations, Governments Slow To React Russia stands out as especially vulnerable in this Chart 7B. Here is where authoritarian measures may pay off, as with China, but only in the short term – since Russia will still be left with an elderly population highly prone to severe illness and a creaking health system. As mentioned above, the risk to Russian stability is a factor pushing for geopolitical cooperation in oil market cartel behavior to push prices up and improve the fiscal outlook to enable better domestic stability management. Bottom Line: Government policy, particularly preparedness and rapid action, have been the decisive factors in containing COVID-19, not dictatorial or democratic government types. The richest countries have the most freedoms and the most vulnerable elderly demographics. Within the rich countries, southern Europe reacted slowly and got hit hardest, with some exceptions. The US’s incompetence has been overrated, based on deaths, probably because of President Trump’s general unpopularity. These results are preliminary but they suggest that the US and EU will experience political change to address their lack of rapid action. Non-democracies will still have to deal with the recession and the consequences on social stability. Democracies Face Voter Blowback Democracies will face the wrath of voters once the immediate crisis dies down. The crisis has driven people to rally around the flag, creating polling bounces for national leaders and ruling parties. In some cases the trough-to-peak increase in popular support is remarkable – President Trump's approval reached 10 percentage points briefly, and he rose over 50% approval in some polls for the first time in his presidency (Chart 8A). Yet these initial bounces are already subsiding, as in Trump’s case (Chart 8B). Chart 8ADemocracies Are Accountable To Voters Chart 8BAnd Polling Bounces Are Fading By this measure, the US, Italy, France, and Spain all face serious political reckonings going forward. Trump is the first in the firing line. Our quantitative election model relies on state-level leading economic indicators that are lagging and show him still winning with 273 Electoral College votes (Chart 9A). However, if we introduce a 2008-magnitude economic shock to these indexes, the Democrats flip Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, yielding 334 Electoral College votes for former Vice President Joe Biden (Chart 9B). This is assuming Trump’s approval rating stays the same, which, at 46%, is strong relative to the whole term in office. Chart 9AOur Quant Election Model Will Turn Against Trump When Data Catches Up Chart 9BA 2008-Style Shock To States Gives Democrats The White House Our qualitative judgement reinforces our election model. Historically, US elections are referendums on the ruling party. An incumbent president helps the party win reelection. But a recession is usually insurmountable. George Bush Sr lost in 1992 despite a shallow recession that ended the year before. While Joe Biden is a flawed candidate in numerous ways, the question voters face in November is whether they are better off than they were four years ago. With thousands of deaths and an unemployment rate at or above 20%, it is hard to see swing state voters answering “yes.” Not impossible, but we subjectively put the odds at 35%, and that could easily be revised downward if Trump’s polling falls back down to the 42% range. Trump will also be responsible for the handling of the pandemic itself. His administration obviously made several policy mistakes. A paper trail will highlight intelligence warnings as early as November, and warnings from his inner circle as early as January, that will hurt him.3 Objectively, the Republican Party’s greatest policy flaw, prior to COVID-19, was health care – and this will connect with COVID-19 even if the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has little to do with crisis response. Bottom Line: The first and most important political casualty of the pandemic will be Trump’s presidency. Not because the US is uniquely incompetent in the face of the pandemic – although it obviously could have done better, judging by several of the other democracies – but because this year happens to be an election year and democracies hold governments accountable. Major Risk Of Clash With China Chart 10China Likely To Depreciate The Renminbi There are two downside geopolitical risks that follow directly from the above. First, while the Democratic candidate Joe Biden is a “centrist,” his position will move to the left of the political spectrum. This is to energize the progressive faction of the party – which is already energized. The market will be taken aback if Biden produces major leftward shifts, in the direction of Senator Bernie Sanders, on taxes, regulation, health care, pharmaceuticals, banks, energy, or tech. This is not a problem when the market is down 36%, but as the market rallies, it becomes more relevant. While US taxes and regulation will go up, Biden will still have to win over the Midwestern Rust Belt voter through trade protectionism, a la Trump and Bernie. This will be exacerbated by the pandemic, which has supercharged American popular enmity toward China and fear of supply chain vulnerability toward China. When Biden reveals that he is protectionist too, US equities will react negatively. Second, more immediately, the clash with China may happen much sooner. As President Trump comes to realize he is losing his grip on power, he will have an incentive to retaliate against China for its mishandling of the pandemic, shift the blame, and achieve long-term strategic objectives as well. This makes Trump’s approval rating a critical indicator – not only of his reelection odds, but of whether he determines he has lost and therefore adopts more belligerent foreign or trade policy. We view the danger zone as anything less than 43%. If Trump becomes a lame duck, he could target China, or other countries, such as Venezuela. The advantage of the latter is that it could have the desired political effect without threatening the economic restart. A conflict with Iran would have bigger consequences – particularly negative for Europe. But in the COVID-19 context, Venezuela and Iran are not relevant to American voters. A conflict with North Korea, however, is part of the strategic conflict with China and would be hard to keep separate from broader tensions. This is only likely if Kim Jong Un stages a major provocation. At present, Washington and Beijing are keeping a lid on tensions. Presidents Trump and Xi are in communication. Beijing has rebuked the foreign minister who accused the US military of bringing COVID-19 to Wuhan. Trump has stopped using inflammatory rhetoric about the “Chinese virus.” China is not depreciating the renminbi, it is upholding other aspects of the trade deal, and it is sending face masks and ventilators to assist the US with the health crisis. But this could change. With its economy under extreme pressure, Beijing must take greater moves to stimulate. An obvious victim will be the renminbi, which is arguably stronger than it should be, especially if China cuts interest rates further, no doubt in great part because of the “phase one” trade deal with the United States (Chart 10). If and when Beijing decides that it must ease the downward pressure on exports and the economy, the renminbi will slide. This will provoke Trump. If he is convinced he cannot salvage the economy anyway, then he has an incentive to channel American anger toward China into new punitive measures over currency manipulation. Finally, the ingredients for our “Taiwan black swan” scenario are falling into place. Taiwan has long attempted to gain representation in the World Health Organization but has been blocked by Beijing’s assertion of the One China principle. However, Taiwan is now caught in an escalating tussle with the WHO leadership that involves both Washington and Beijing. Taipei warned the WHO as early as December that COVID-19 could be transmitted by humans and that the pandemic risk was high.4 Both China and the WHO leadership are simultaneously under pressure from the Trump administration for failing to share information and sound the alarm to prepare other nations. Bottom Line: If President Trump decides to prosecute China for its handling of the virus, and/or promote US-Taiwan relations in a way that aggravates China, then the trigger for a major geopolitical incident will have arrived. Investment Implications It is impossible to predict the precise catalyst or timing of such a crisis. We observe that the US and China are each experiencing historic economic dislocation, their strategic relationship has broken down over the past decade, and their populations are incensed at each other over grievances relating to the trade war, COVID-19, and various disinformation campaigns. Taiwan is at the epicenter of this conflict, due to its defense relationship with the United States and renewed political tensions with China under Xi Jinping. But the Chinese tech sector, North Korea, the South and East China Seas, Xinjiang, and Iran are also potential catalysts. Geopolitics is the other shoe to drop in the wake of COVID-19. Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping are the biggest sources of geopolitical risk, as we outlined in our 2020 forecast. They are cooperating in the immediate crisis, but in the aftermath there will be recriminations. A worsening domestic situation, a loss of prestige for either leader, or a foreign policy provocation could trigger punitive measures, saber rattling, or even military incidents. Risk assets are rallying on the light at the end of the tunnel. We are reaching and in some countries passing the peak intensity of the (first wave of the) pandemic. But the economic aftermath is extremely uncertain and the political fallout has hardly begun. In the US, the implication is clearly negative for Trump. But if that implication is realized, it points to much higher geopolitical risks within 2020 than are currently being considered as the world focuses on the virus. If President Trump chooses to wag the dog with Venezuela, that is obviously a much more positive outcome for global risk assets than if he attempts to achieve American strategic objectives of curbing China’s global assertiveness. Tactically, we remain defensive and recommend defensive US equity sectors and the Japanese yen. On a 12-month and beyond time frame we are more bullish on global growth and are long gold and oil. We remain strategically short CNY-USD and short Taiwanese equities relative to Korean.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Appendix TableThe Global Fiscal Stimulus Response To COVID-19 Footnotes 1 Given that one of Iran’s top health officials has criticized China for its questionable data and lack of transparency, one does not need to trust the US Intelligence Community’s assessment that China misled the world in the early days of the outbreak. See Matthew Petti, "Even Iran Doesn't Believe China's Coronavirus Stats," April 6, 2020. 2 Readers accustomed to the apocalyptic view of the US health system may wonder that the US comes out looking very well on health capacity. This is because we combine and standardize the scores for per capita spending and longevity. However our data also show that the US is inefficient on health: its life expectancy scores are slightly lower than those of the Europeans, yet it spends more per head. 3 See Josh Margolin and James Gordon Meek, "Intelligence report warned of coronavirus crisis as early as November: Sources," ABC News, April 8, 2020, and Maggie Haberman, "Trade Adviser Warned White House in January of Risks of a Pandemic," New York Times, April 6, 2020. 4 See "Taiwan says WHO failed to act on coronavirus transmission warning," Financial Times, March 19, 2020.

Highlights Europe’s dirty little secret: Euro area debt is already mutualised. Investment implication: Overweight Italian BTPs, underweight German bunds, and overweight the euro on a structural (2-year plus) horizon. ESM plus ECB plus OMT equals a compromise solution to fund stimulus at a mutualised euro area interest rate. Investment implication: Overweight Italian BTPs, underweight German bunds on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. Spain’s high early peak in morbidity means that it has taken its pain upfront, at least compared to other countries.  Investment implication: upgrade Spain’s IBEX to a tactical overweight – and remove it from the cyclical underweight basket. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Underperformances Of China, Italy And Spain Were A Mirror-Image Of Their Covid-19 Morbidity Curves More About Morbidity Curves Most analyses of the pandemic tend to focus on the grim daily mortality statistics. Yet the key to the pandemic’s evolution is not its mortality rate, but rather its morbidity (severe illness) rate. This is because, without a vaccine, the total area underneath the morbidity curve is fixed. The cumulative number of people who will fall severely ill is pre-determined at the outset (Figures 1-3). Figure I-1The Area Under The Morbidity Curve Is Fixed, A High First Peak Means A Low Second Peak Figure I-2A Low First Peak Means An Extended First Peak…   Figure I-3…Or A High Second Peak Very optimistically assuming a Covid-19 morbidity rate of 1 percent, and that 65 percent of the population must get infected to exhaust the pandemic, we know that Covid-19 will ultimately make 0.65 percent of the population severely ill. Absent a vaccine, this number is set in stone. But the number of deaths is not set in stone. It depends on the availability of emergency medical treatment for those that are severely ill. For Covid-19 this means access to ventilation in an intensive care unit (ICU). Yet even the best equipped countries only have ICUs for 0.03 percent of the population. Therefore, the emergency treatment must be rationed either by supply or by demand. Without a Covid-19 vaccine, we cannot change the cumulative number of people who will become severely ill. Rationing by supply means that we must deny emergency treatment to the severely ill – not just Covid-19 patients but victims of, say, heart attacks or car crashes. Accept more deaths. Rationing by demand means that we must flatten the demand (morbidity) curve so that demand is always satisfied by the limited ICU supply. During the pandemics of 1918-19 and 1957, countries could ration emergency medical treatment by supply. Not in 2020. In an era of universal healthcare, everybody is entitled to, and expects to get, emergency medical care. Which means we must ration emergency medical treatment by demand. As such, we must analyse the 2020 response differently to the responses in 1918-19 and 1957. To repeat, without a vaccine, we cannot change the area under the morbidity curve. There is no way of escaping this truth. A low first peak requires a very elongated peak or a high second peak (Chart I-2). Conversely, countries that have suffered a high first peak will need a shorter peak and small (or no) second peak. Chart I-2Japan's Early Stabilisation Was A False Dawn Turning to an equity market implication, the underperformances of highly cyclical and domestically exposed Spain and Italy have closely tracked their morbidity curves (Chart I-1). Given that both countries have suffered very high first peaks in morbidity, the strong implication is that they have taken their pain upfront – at least compared to other countries. In the case of Spain, the market is also technically oversold (see Fractal Trading System). Investment implication: upgrade Spain’s IBEX to a tactical overweight – and remove it from the cyclical underweight basket. How Europe Could Unite Europe is dithering on its fiscal response to the pandemic. Specifically, Germany and the Netherlands are pushing back against the concept of mutualised euro area debt in the form of ‘corona-bonds’. But a pandemic is an act of nature, an indiscriminate exogenous shock. What is the point of the economic and monetary union if Italy must fund its response to an act of nature at the Italian 10-year yield of 1.5 percent rather than the euro area 10-year yield of 0 percent? (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4) Chart I-3To Fight An Act Of Nature Why Should Italy Borrow At A Higher Rate... Chart I-4...When It Could Borrow At A Lower Mutualised Rate? The good news is there is a compromise solution to fund stimulus at a mutualised interest rate. It uses the euro area’s €500 billion bailout fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). But the compromise solution carries two problems which need mitigation. First, ESM credit lines come with conditionality. Italy would rightly balk if it were shackled like Greece, Portugal, and Ireland were after the euro debt crisis. Luckily, the ESM is likely to regard the current ‘act of nature’ crisis very differently to the debt crisis and impose only minimum and appropriate conditionality – for example, that credit lines should be used for healthcare and social welfare spending. Second, ESM credit lines come with a stigma. Taking fright that Italy is tapping the ESM, the bond market might drive up the yields on Italian BTPs. If this pushed up Italy’s overall funding rate, it would defeat the purpose of using the ESM in the first place. ESM plus ECB plus OMT equals a compromise solution to borrow at a mutualised interest rate. The hope is that the bond market, realising that Italy is using the bailout facility to counter an act of nature, would not drive up BTP yields. But if it did, the ECB could counter this by buying BTPs. One option would be to use its Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) facility. Set up during the euro debt crisis, the OMT’s specific function is to counter bond market attacks when they are not justified by the economic fundamentals. In other words, to prevent a liquidity crisis escalating into a solvency crisis. Thereby, ESM plus ECB plus OMT equals a compromise solution to fund stimulus at a mutualised euro area interest rate. Investment implication: Overweight Italian BTPs, underweight German bunds on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. Europe’s Dirty Little Secret Outwardly, Germany and the Netherlands are reluctant to go down the slippery slope to mutualised euro area debt. But here’s the dirty little secret they don’t want you to know. Euro area debt is already mutualised. The stealth mutualisation has happened via the Target2 banking imbalance which now stands at €1.5 trillion. This imbalance is an accounting identity showing that Italy is owed ‘German euros’ via its large quantity of bank deposits in German banks while Germany is symmetrically owed ‘Italian euros’ via its large effective holding of Italian government bonds. The imbalance is irrelevant if a German euro equals an Italian euro. But if Italy defaulted on its bonds – by repaying them in a reinstated and devalued lira – then Target2 means that Germany must pick up the bill (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Target2 Means That If Italy Defaults, Germany Picks Up The Bill The Target2 imbalance is the result of the ECB’s QE program, in which the central bank has bought hundreds of billions of Italian bonds. If Italy repaid those bonds in a devalued lira, then the ECB would become insolvent, and the central bank’s remaining shareholders would have to plug the hole. The biggest shareholder would be Germany. Could Germany force Italy to repay its bonds in euros? No. According to a legal principle called ‘lex monetae’ Italy can repay its debt in its sovereign currency, whatever that is. Meanwhile, because of the fragility of the Italian banking system, the Italians who sold the bonds to the ECB deposited the cash in German banks. Legally, these depositors must be paid back in whatever is the German currency. Euro area debt is already mutualised. If euro area debt is already mutualised, why do policymakers continue to pretend that it isn’t? There are three reasons. First no policymaker would want to publicise that Germany is now on the hook if Italy left the euro. Second, no policymaker would want to publicise that the ECB has put Germany in this position (Chart I-6). Chart I-6ECB QE Has Created The Target2 Imbalance Third, and most important, policymakers would point out that the mutualisation of debt only happens if the euro breaks up. They would argue that because the euro is irreversible, the debt is not mutualised. In fact, their argument is completely back to front. The truth is: Because euro area debt is now mutualised, the euro has become irreversible. Investment implication: Overweight Italian BTPs, underweight German bunds, and overweight the euro on a structural (2-year plus) horizon. Fractal Trading System* As already discussed, this week’s recommended trade is long Spain’s IBEX 35 versus the Euro Stoxx 600. The profit target is 3 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. Meanwhile our other trade, long Australia versus New Zealand has moved into a 2 percent profit. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 66 percent. Chart I-7IBEX 35 Vs. EUROSTOXX 600 When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

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