先進国

Overweight (Downgrade Alert) We have been overweight the S&P biotech index and adding alpha to our portfolio in the double digits since February 2019. While a few technology sectors and subsectors have come close to vaulting to fresh all-time highs in absolute terms, none other than the S&P biotech index has managed such an impressive feat. The stealthy advance in biotech stocks has been earnings driven and is not only confined to the narrow based Big-Pharma lookalike S&P biotech index (see chart), but also to the more speculative NASDAQ biotech index that comprises 209 stocks. However, we do not want to overstate our welcome and are putting the index on downgrade alert and instituting a 5% rolling stop in order to protect profits. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P biotech index, but put it on downgrade alert and set a 5% rolling stop in order to protect profits. Please refer to this Tuesday’s Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BIOT – ABBV, ALXN, AMGN, BIIB, GILD, INCY, REGN, VRTX.  

Highlights China is taking advantage of global chaos to solidify its sphere of influence – beginning with Hong Kong. The crisis is also motivating the European Union to link arms more tightly through a symbolic step toward fiscal solidarity and transfers. US, Chinese, and European stimulus measures are cyclically positive but near-term risks abound. Hiccups in stimulus rollout are to be expected – and China’s disappointing stimulus thus far may cause market turmoil before policymakers do what we expect and add greater oomph. US-China relations are breaking down as we outlined, as renminbi depreciation coincides with Trump approval depreciation. The risks of the UK failing to agree to a trade deal with the EU are higher than prior to COVID-19. Stay defensive tactically – the risk-on rally is not yet confirmed by major reflation indicators yet geopolitical risks are spiking. Feature Chart 1Will Geopolitics Stunt The Early Bull's Growth? After wavering at the 2,900 level, the S&P 500 broke above 3,000. As we go to press, it is holding the line, despite a surge in geopolitical risk emanating from the efforts of the Great Powers to consolidate their spheres of influence at the expense of globalization. Key cyclical indicators are on the verge of breaking out. Our “China Play Index,” which consists of the Australian dollar, Swedish equities, Brazilian equities, and iron ore prices, is reviving smartly. The copper-to-gold ratio, however, is not really confirming the rally (Chart 1). Nor are Asian currencies. We recommend a tactically defensive stance. We are not dogmatic, but are not convinced that the rally will overcome near-term risks. We expect explosive political and geopolitical events throughout the summer. Near-Term Geopolitical Risks To The Rally Our reasons for near-term caution are as follows: Global stimulus hiccups: China’s National People’s Congress over the weekend disappointed expectations on the size of economic stimulus. This is a short-term risk, we argue below, but nevertheless a risk. The US Congress may not pass stimulus until July 2 and the final law will fall short of the House bill of $3 trillion. The European “Next Generation EU” recovery fund is only 750 billion euros in size and may not be agreed until July, or even September if the financial market does not impose urgency. We elaborate below. Ultimately policymakers will keep doing “whatever it takes” but there will be hiccups first and they will trouble the market in the near term (Chart 2). Chart 2Stimulus Tsunami Will Peak This Summer Sino-American conflict: The “phase one” trade deal was never going to bring durable comfort to markets about US-China cooperation, and the outbreak of COVID-19 prompted our March 13 argument that US-China tensions would erupt sooner than we thought. So far the market is grinding higher despite the materialization of this risk. Mega-stimulus and the equity rally enable the US and China to clash. At some point escalation will upset the market. Domestic stimulus is substituting for a collapse in globalization and risk markets are cheering. But increased domestic support will enable political leaders to clash with each other and keep upping the ante. The higher the market goes the more willing President Trump will be to expend some ammunition on China and other political targets. But if you play with sticks, somebody always gets hurt. The market is betting that Trump is a typical US president, typically bashing China in an election year. We are arguing that he is atypical, that this is an atypical election year, and that China’s own ambition cannot be left out of the equation. Wild cards: Jokers, one-eyed jacks, suicidal kings, and aces are all wild in this deck. Emerging markets like Russia (Chart 3) – and rogue regimes like Iran – pose non-negligible risks of upsetting the global rebound this year. Chart 3ARussian Risk To Rise Further On Libya, US Tensions Chart 3BRussian Risk To Rise Further On Libya, US Tensions   Chart 4Equity Investors Wise To Erdogan's Mischief Investors cannot focus on tail risks all the time, but not all geopolitical risks are tail risks. This is particularly the case because of the US election, which heightens Washington’s willingness to retaliate to any provocations. Geopolitics in the Mediterranean are verifiably unstable, particularly in Libya where Russia looks to make a major intervention yet Turkey is also involved (Chart 4). This affects North African and European security. Iran is under historic stress and will attempt to undermine the Trump administration as it has no downside to Democratic victory in November. In a recent event we hosted with the CFA Institute in India and Asia Pacific, only 4% of participants highlighted Russia and 2% Iran as a significant source of political risk this year, while 93% highlighted the US and China. Clearly the US-China competition is the great game. But other risks are underrated, especially Russia. Stimulus hiccups this summer are likely to be overcome in the US, EU, and China, so perhaps the market will look through this risk while economies reopen and leading indicators inevitably improve. US-China tensions could remain bound within Trump’s desire to keep the stock market up during his election campaign and China’s desire not to incur Trump’s unmitigated wrath if he happens to be reelected. Russian, Iranian, and emerging market risks, if they materialize, may have merely localized and ephemeral market effects. However, Trump’s falling approval rating and executive decree to open the social media companies to litigation supports our thesis that he is not enslaved by the stock market. The market is expecting “the Art of the Deal” to lead to positive outcomes but that assumption is not as reliable in a recessionary context as it is in an economic boom. The Atlanta Fed’s second quarter real GDP growth estimate stands at -40.4%. Any state that provokes the US over the next five months risks a massive or unpredictable retaliation. China will ultimately bring stimulus to 15.5% of GDP. Deflation and unemployment are a massive constraint. We do not mention the well-known risks of weak consumer activity and business investment amid the pandemic, which itself is expected to revive in the fall with no guarantee of a vaccine by then. Bottom Line: In the near term, maintain safe haven trades such as long Japanese yen, US Treasuries, and defensive equity sectors. China Stimulus Hiccups Won’t Last, But Will Sow Doubt The most important question in China is the implication of the National People’s Congress with regard to the size of stimulus. After the stimulus blowout of 2015-16, Xi Jinping consolidated power and launched a deleveraging campaign. His administration is determined to keep a lid on systemic risks, especially the money and credit bubble. Chart 5China's Stimulus Faces Doubts But Will Prove Huge In The End Beijing’s targets for central and local government spending disappointed market observers. In Chart 2 above, we revised Beijing’s fiscal stimulus from 11% of GDP to 4.3% of GDP as a result of lower-than-expected targets for local government special bonds and central government special treasury bonds, as well as a corrected calculation of the fiscal relief for small and-medium-sized enterprises. This 4.3% understates the real size of China’s stimulus because it includes only fiscal elements. Since the Communist Party and state bureaucracy control the banks and many large enterprises, one must also include credit growth – it is a quasi-fiscal factor. Total social financing (total private credit) is usually the biggest element of China’s periodic bouts of stimulus. While Chinese authorities showed restraint in their fiscal measures, they announced that credit growth would “significantly” exceed nominal GDP growth, which has collapsed due to the virus lockdowns. Our Emerging Markets Strategy estimates that credit growth will accelerate to 14% this year, making for an 11.2% of GDP increase in total credit, and a combined fiscal and credit impulse that will reach 15.5% of GDP (Chart 5). The dramatic global economic shock and the hit to China’s labor market ensure that additional stimulus will be applied as needed to plug the output gap. Soaring unemployment is a fundamental risk to social stability and hence to single-party rule. This means that the fiscal impulse will in the end likely exceed 4.3% as new measures are rolled out later this year. It also means that credit growth will surprise to the upside, as the regime loosens the reins on shadow banks as well as state-controlled lenders. Nevertheless, accepting our Emerging Market Strategy’s base case of 15.5% of GDP fiscal and credit impulse, we would note that China’s economy is much larger as a share of the global economy today than it was in previous rounds of stimulus. Thus while the stimulus may be smaller than that in 2008 as a proportion of China’s economy, it is larger as a proportion of the world’s (Table 1). China-linked asset prices, such as industrial metals, will see rising demand over time. Table 1China Fiscal+Credit Impulse Will Be Big Relative To World The Xi administration’s preference is not to overstimulate and exacerbate its problems of imbalanced growth, falling productivity, and excessive indebtedness. But its constraint is deflation, unemployment, and social instability. Insufficiently loose policy in the midst of a very deep global recession could prove to be the biggest policy mistake of all time. To refuse to loosen as needed, or to re-tighten policy too soon, would be to make a cruel joke out of the new policy slogan, “the Six Stabilities and Six Guarantees” and jeopardize Xi Jinping’s ability to reconsolidate power ahead of the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022. Rather the constraint will force policymakers to alter any hawkish preferences if growth looks to relapse. Bottom Line: Doubts about the sufficiency of China’s fiscal and monetary stimulus pose a near-term risk to global risk assets since investors face disappointing stimulus promises on the surface, combined with lack of certainty about Beijing’s willingness to increase stimulus going forward. We are confident that Beijing will ultimately do whatever it takes to stabilize employment and try to ensure social stability. But this implies near-term challenges and possibly a market riot prior to resolution. Before then, many market participants, including in China, will believe that the Xi Jinping administration will be hawkish and resistant to re-leveraging. China’s Sphere Of Influence Global geopolitical risk stems from the Xi Jinping regime at least as much as from the Donald Trump regime, as we have long pointed out. The scenario unfolding as we go to press is precisely the one we outlined back in March in which Beijing depreciates its currency to ease its economic woes while President Trump’s approval rating falls due to his own woes, prompting him to retaliate. The CNY-USD exchange rate is largely pricing out the phase one trade deal, which is marked by the peak in renminbi strength in Chart 6. Chart 6Phase One Trade Deal Priced Out Of Renminbi Already Chart 7China's Warning To Trump Could Scrap Trade Deal This depreciation is not merely the effect of market moves – though weakness in global and Asian trade and manufacturing certainly reinforce it. The People’s Bank of China’s fixing rate has been guiding the currency to its lowest point since 2008 amid the spike in US-China tensions over the past month (Chart 7). China says it will adhere to the phase one deal as long as it is mutual. It is buying more soybeans, cotton, pork, and beef from the United States relative to last year. Demand has collapsed. Unless China decides to dictate purchases as a subsidy to keep the agreement alive, its purchases will fall short of the huge expansion envisioned in the deal. US actions could nullify the deal anyway. President Trump and his Economic Director Larry Kudlow have both suggested that the administration no longer cares about maintaining the deal. China was fast becoming unpopular in the US and this trend has skyrocketed as a result of COVID-19. China’s other notable decision at the National People’s Congress was to state that it would impose a new national security law on Hong Kong SAR, after the autonomous financial center’s long reluctance to do so. Beijing has sought greater direct control of the city since early in Xi’s term, in contravention of the promise of 50 years of substantial autonomy enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. Beijing’s action comes after Hong Kong’s widespread civil unrest last year and ahead of the city’s Legislative Council elections in September, which will likely become a major geopolitical flashpoint. The United States is retaliating by removing Hong Kong’s designation as an autonomous region. This entails higher tariffs, tougher export controls, stricter visa requirements, and likely sanctions directed at mainland entities that will enforce the national security law in various ways, including eventually some Chinese banks. The US also accelerated sanctions against China for its civil rights abuses in Xinjiang – sanctions that target tech and security companies – and is moving forward with a bill to threaten Chinese companies that hold American Depository Receipts (ADRs) with delisting from American stock exchanges if they do not meet the same auditing requirements as other foreign companies. This potentially affects $1.8 trillion in market capitalization over a 3-4 year period. China’s power grab in Hong Kong initiates a market-negative Sino-American dynamic that will last all year. It cannot be assumed that Trump will accept Beijing’s implicit offer of swapping phase one trade deal implementation for China’s historic encroachment on Hong Kong’s autonomy. The imposition of legislative dependency on Hong Kong should not have been a surprise to investors given recent trends, but it was, as Hong Kong equities fell by 6% at first blush. There is more downside, judging by our China GeoRisk Indicator, which is in a clear uptrend for all of these reasons and correlates reasonably well with the Hang Seng index (Chart 8). Chart 8Hong Kong Equities Face More Downside From Geopolitics While the US will retaliate over Hong Kong, the question for global investors is whether the conflict spills over into the rest of China’s periphery. This would highlight the systemic nature of the geopolitical risk and make it harder for the market to swallow the new cold war. Our Taiwan Strait GeoRisk Indicator (Chart 9) is pricing zero political risk despite the clear risk that Beijing will eventually resort to economic sanctions to penalize the mainland-skeptic government there; that the US will seek to shore up the diplomatic and defense relationship in significant ways in what may be the final five months of the Trump administration; and that Taiwan may seek to draw the US into granting greater economic and security assurances. Chart 9Taiwan Equities Pricing ZERO Geopolitical Risk ... Huge Mispricing Our Korea GeoRisk Indicator (Chart 10) has also fallen drastically. This risk indicator deviates from Korean equities frequently due to North Korean risks, which equity investors tend (usually correctly) to ignore. This year is different, however, because Kim Jong Un’s decision whether to give Trump a diplomatic win, or frustrate him with the test of a nuclear device or intercontinental ballistic missile, actually has a bearing on Trump’s election odds and the pace of US-China escalation. If Kim humiliates Trump then we expect Trump to make a major show of force in the region that would draw China into a strategic standoff. Chart 10North Korea Is Relevant In 2020 Due To Trump China is attempting to solidify its sphere of influence, first in Hong Kong but later in Taiwan and the Korean peninsula. The United States is pushing back and the US election cycle combined with massive stimulus means that push will come to shove. Bottom Line: Investors should steer clear of Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean currencies and risk assets in the near term. We recommend playing the cyclical China recovery via Korean equities over the long run. The European Sphere Of Influence The European Union is also attempting to strengthen and expand its sphere of influence – namely with steps in the direction of a fiscal union. Our GeoRisk Indicators are generally flagging a huge drop in political risk for Germany, France, Italy, and Spain (Charts 11A & 11B). The reason is that the economies have collapsed yet the equity market has bounded back on ECB quantitative easing and huge promises of fiscal support. In the coming months these risk indicators will rise even as economies reopen because the debate over fiscal and monetary policies is heating up. Our base case is that both the debate over EU recovery funds and the German constitutional court’s objections to QE will resolve in dovish compromises. Chart 11AEurope’s Not-Quite Hamiltonian Moment Chart 11BEurope’s Not-Quite Hamiltonian Moment At issue on the fiscal front is the EU Commission’s “Next Generation EU” recovery fund. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is offering to create a 750 billion euro relief fund (500 billion in grants, 250 billion in loans). The decision is contentious because it would entail the EU Commission issuing bonds – essentially joint bonds among the EU states – to raise funds that would then be distributed through the EU Commission seven-year budget (2021-7). Joint issuance would be a symbolic step toward greater solidarity. This proposal began with an agreement between French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel to launch the 500 billion in grants. Merkel signaled earlier this year that she was prepared to accept joint bond issuance focused on the immediate crisis. When more fiscally hawkish or euroskeptic states objected that loans should be used instead of grants, von der Leyen simply added their proposal to the total, despite the fact that the ECB and European Stability Mechanism (ESM) already offer emergency loans to help states through the global crisis. The proposal marks a victory of the fiscally dovish Mediterranean states (once called “Club Med”) over the frugal Germans, with Macron prevailing on Merkel to foist yet another major compromise onto her conservative German power base in the name of European integration and solidarity before she exits the chancellorship in 2021. But it is not as if German elites like Merkel and von der Leyen are running amok: German public opinion is Europhile and supportive of bolder actions to share burdens, save the union, and shore up the continental economy. The market is not pricing any political risk in Taiwan despite clear dangers. Stay short Taiwanese equities. The recovery fund itself is limited in size, relative to overall stimulus actions thus far. But it would plug an important gap for states like Italy and Spain, which are constrained by large public debt loads and have not provided enough stimulus as yet. The “Frugal Four,” the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, and Denmark, are leading the opposition to the use of grants rather than loans and any effort to establish a track leading to European fiscal union. But they are also willing to negotiate. Estonia and other nations are also objecting, with the eastern Europeans seeking to ensure that southern Europe does not take the lion’s share of the funds, while the core European states will use the funds to pressure populist and euroskeptic eastern states that have defied the European Court of Justice and other institutions (Chart 12). Chart 12Europe: Distribution Of ‘NextGen EU’ Fund A final decision may not be settled by the time of a special summit in July but some compromise should be expected by the fall or (latest) end of year. The proposal would do the very thing that its opponents resist: pave the way toward jointly issued bonds in future that do not have a time limit or a single purpose (today’s sole purpose being pandemic relief). Hence the negotiations will be intense and it will likely require a return of financial instability to bring them to a conclusion. The global financial crisis and its aftermath provoked a higher degree of integration among the EU member states despite the tendency of the mainstream media to assume that the dissonance between monetary and fiscal policy would create an unbridgeable rupture. COVID-19 is now supporting this pattern of Brussels not letting a good crisis go to waste. Chart 13Europe Fends Off Latest Doubts About Solidarity The reason is that the EU is a geopolitical project. As Russia revived, the US began to act unilaterally and unpredictably, and China emerged as a global heavyweight, European powers were forced to huddle together ever more tightly to create economies of scale and improve their security against various external and unconventional threats. Influential German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz has compared the new recovery fund to the work of American founding father Alexander Hamilton in mutualizing the early American states’ war debt so as to create a tighter fiscal union among the states. For that very reason the more Euroskeptic member states oppose the proposal – long rejecting the idea of a “United States of Europe.” Today’s proposals are more symbolic, less substantial, than Hamilton’s famous Compromise of 1790. Nevertheless we would not underrate them as they highlight the way the European states continually turn crisis moments that worry the markets about European break-up into new opportunities to combine more closely. As such it is fitting that the European break-up risk premium has fallen, signifying a drop in peripheral bond spreads (Chart 13). The battle over debt mutualization is not over yet so spreads could widen again, but the trend will be down as the bloc develops new tools to combat the latest crisis. The United Kingdom obviously marks a major exception to this reinforcement of the European sphere of influence. The Brits are historically and geopolitically opposed to a unified continental political power. Having decided to leave, they lack the ability to obstruct from within. But they are also not necessarily more likely to yield in their trade negotiations. British political risks are understandably low because Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party won a strong mandate in December and technically do not have to face voters again until 2024. The major limitation on a “no trade deal” outcome in talks with Brussels was a recession – yet that has already occurred. London could ultimately bite the bullet and accept that outcome if the trade talks turn acrimonious. The GBP/EUR is not pricing a full “no deal” exit. Stimulus and economic recovery suggest that it is a good time to go long sterling but we will pass on this trade in the short run due to resilient dollar strength and the reduced barrier to exiting without a trade deal (Charts 14A & 14B). Chart 14ABrexit Trade Talks Not Globally Relevant Chart 14BBrexit Trade Talks Not Globally Relevant Bottom Line: We do not yet recommend reinstituting our long EUR/USD trade, which we initiated late last year as part of our annual forecast. The COVID-19 crisis has created such a spike in geopolitical and political risk that we expect the US dollar to remain surprisingly strong throughout the coming months and for US equities to outperform global equities beyond expectation. Nevertheless we will look to reinitiate this long-term trade at an appropriate time, as it fits squarely with our “European Integration” theme since 2012. Investment Takeaways Our contention that “geopolitics is the next shoe to drop” has materialized. This has negative near-term implications for global risk assets. However, thus far, market positives have outweighed negatives for global investors faced with the reopening of economies and wartime-magnitude fiscal and monetary stimulus. Buying risky assets makes sense for investors with a long-term investment horizon – and we recommend cyclical plays like commodities, corporate bonds, infrastructure stocks, and defense stocks in our strategic portfolio. We also recognize that if key cyclical and reflation indicators break out from here, then a cyclical bull market could take shape. Yet our analytical framework reveals that recession and mega-stimulus have diminished the financial and economic constraints that would normally deter geopolitical actors from ambitious actions on the international stage. Most notably, the US election dynamic has turned upside-down. President Trump is the underdog and will need to develop a reelection bid that does not hinge on the economy. Doubling down on “America First” foreign policy and trade policy makes the most sense and the ramifications are negative for the markets over the next five months. This is the key dynamic that makes US-China, US-North Korea, US-Russia, and US-Iran tensions more market-relevant than they would otherwise be. It also will dampen an otherwise positive story for the euro, in the short run.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Section II: Appendix : GeoRisk Indicator China: Russia: UK: Germany: France: Italy: Canada: Spain: Taiwan: Korea: Turkey: Brazil: Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights US refiners will raise capacity-utilization rates as demand revives, which will keep crude oil inventories draining through 2H20. Early data indicate COVID-19-induced lockdowns pushed demand for gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other products in the US down by a massive 31.9% vs. five-year average levels between March and end-April (Chart of the Week).1 Supply destruction in the US shales, a surge in crude exports, and an import collapse catalyzed by unintended inventory accumulation kept storage from breaching operational capacity outside Cushing, OK, where NYMEX WTI futures deliver. We continue to expect WTI to average ~ $37/bbl this year and ~ $65/bbl next year. Brent will trade ~ $3/bbl higher. Two-way price risk – to the upside and downside – remains high. Feature US refiners did an extraordinary job of balancing their systems in the wake of this demand collapse, which, with impelling alacrity, propelled similarly rapid adjustments in pipeline, storage and shipping markets.  Getting a fix on the actual demand destruction in oil markets wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic is exceedingly difficult. Few regional markets track fundamental data in anything close to a timely manner, except for the US, where the Energy Information Agency (EIA) publishes early estimates of crude and refined-product output, consumption, exports and imports on a weekly basis. Of course, these data are preliminary and will be revised – perhaps substantially – post-publication. However, they are invaluable for getting an early read on the effects of an exogenous shock like the COVID-19 pandemic in an advanced economy. While this experience cannot be translated directly to the rest of the world, the analysis is useful in getting a handle on the order of magnitude of demand destruction globally. These early data flows indicate that, between March and the end of April, US refined-product demand fell a stunning 31.9% vs. its five-year average, as shown in the Chart of the Week. The collapse in US product demand led OECD demand lower by a similar magnitude, which is unsurprising, given the US accounted for ~ 20% of the 100mm b/d or so of products consumed globally prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An analysis of these early data indicate US refiners did an extraordinary job of balancing their systems in the wake of this demand collapse, which, with impelling alacrity, propelled similarly rapid adjustments in pipeline, storage and shipping markets. These adjustments now are being reflected in forward curves for WTI and Brent, as market participants discount them. Chart of the WeekUS Refined-Products Demand Collapse Refiner Adjustments Propel Re-Balancing Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully. - Samuel Johnson2 As the extent of the demand destruction became apparent in March, US refiners in PADDs 2 and 3 – the US Midwest and Gulf Coast, respectively, where ~ 75% of US refining capacity is situated – moved quickly to throttle back operations (Chart 2).3 Average utilization rates in both districts fell from a 1Q20 peak of 96.5% in January to 71.2% in April. In volumetric terms, this represented a decline of 4.1mm b/d in US refiner crude inputs (gross), leaving total inputs at 13.4mm b/d by the end of April (Chart 3). Chart 2US Refiners Quickly Ramped Down Chart 3US Refiners Throttle Back Run Rates As Product Demand Collapses Early data indicate pipelines and storage operators let it be known their systems were rapidly filling. This sudden ramping down in operations reduced refiners’ demand for flowing crude oil, leading to a sharp unintended accumulation of crude and product inventory in the US midcontinent and Gulf Coast, and the US East coast (PADD 1), which can receive more than 3mm b/d of refined product on the Colonial Pipeline, a 5,500-mile line running from Houston, TX, to the New York Harbor (Chart 4). With crude and product storage filling, anecdotal reports now confirmed in the early data indicate pipelines and storage operators let it be known their systems were rapidly filling, and that they soon would be denying access to their transportation and holding facilities. Word reached the US shale-oil basins, particularly the Permian and midcontinent fields in Oklahoma and North Dakota, where producers were forced to lay down rigs and choke back crude flows to reduce output (Chart 5).4 Chart 4Demand Collapse Leads To Unintended Inventory Accumulation Chart 5The Word Goes Out To Cut Production, As Pipelines and Storage Fill Additional data will be required to assess how quickly crude production ramped down in the US shales, but it appears the quick-response capability of this production allowed storage operators outside of Cushing, OK, to avoid even coming close to breaching the critical 80% operating capacity threshold of storage operators in these key districts. US Ramps Crude Exports, Slashes Imports Sharply lower refiner demand forced producers and traders to move crude oil out of the US as quickly as possible. In addition to sharply curtailing production, sharply lower refiner demand forced producers and traders to move crude oil out of the US as quickly as possible, which they did (Chart 6). US crude exports are up 26.9% y/y in 1H20, and likely will continue to remain strong. At the same time, US imports of crude oil have fallen 12.6% y/y as refiners continue to manage their own storage levels and system requirements. This will allow floating storage, particularly in the US Gulf, to be drawn down, as refiners return to normal utilization rates (Chart 7). Chart 6US Crude Exports Soar, Imports Collapse ... Chart 7… And Floating Storage Soars, Particularly In The US Gulf The only outlier in all of this was Cushing, OK, where the NYMEX WTI futures contract delivers. Production curtailments in the shales, surging crude exports and sharply lower imports kept storage levels under control, for the most part, as refined-product demand was collapsing in the US. Indeed, EIA data indicate storage levels in PADDs 2 and 3 overall remained below 65% of working-storage capacity throughout March and April. The only outlier in all of this was Cushing, OK, where the NYMEX WTI futures contract delivers. Storage in Cushing breached 80% of capacity in the last two weeks of April before falling back to ~ 70% by mid-May (Chart 8). The proximate cause of this appears to be a disorderly termination of trading in the NYMEX WTI contract for May delivery in Cushing.5 Chart 8Storage In Cushing, OK, Breached 80% Of Capacity US Product Demand Revival It’s still early days, but there are indications of demand reviving in the US. The Apple Mobility Index, which tracks consumer interest in travel, appears to move in line with US refined-product demand (Chart 9). Our expectation remains demand will revive in 2H20 and will increase sharply y/y in 2021, given the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed in the US and globally. This, coupled with the massive supply cuts by OPEC 2.0 and producers outside the coalition, will allow prices to continue to rebound over this period.5 Brent prices likely will average $40/bbl this year and $68/bbl next year. We expect WTI to trade $2 - $4/bbl below Brent. That said, two-way price risk remains extremely high, as we have noted before. Output cuts by OPEC 2.0 and US shale-oil producers could overshoot, and take too much supply off the market as demand is recovering, while demand could once again collapse if a second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic emerges following the lifting of lockdowns globally. Chart 9US Interest In Travel Generally Appears To Be Picking Up     Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Fernando Crupi Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy FernandoC@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight WTI prices increased 74% since beginning of May as economies gradually ease lockdown measures and global voluntary and involuntary supply cuts intensify. In the US, total oil rig count fell 73% to an 11-year low of 237 rigs, reflecting weak investment appetite by producers. The IEA expects investment in the oil and gas sector to fall by $400 billion this year, led by a 32% decline in oil and gas investment. In trading markets, speculators are returning to WTI markets in expectations lower supply and reviving demand will drain inventories and move prices significantly up (Chart 10). Fund managers now hold 8-to-1 long contracts in WTI vs. 2-to-1 for Brent. Base Metals: Neutral The LMEX rose 10% since bottoming on March 23. Copper, aluminum, zinc and nickel are up by 15%, 6%, 9% and 13%. Iron ore prices dropped ~$2/MT on Tuesday as ore exports from Brazil’s Vale increased by 1.5mm tons, easing concerns about COVID-19 induced supply disruption in the country, according to Fastmarkets MB. Precious Metals: Neutral Record economic policy uncertainty in the US – and globally – keeps safe assets – chiefly gold and the US dollar – well bid (Chart 11). We expect the dollar will weaken as economies reopen and uncertainty wanes. As this unfolds, the risk of a temporary pullback in gold prices remains elevated. Medium to long term, persistent accommodative global monetary policy will continue to support the yellow metal’s upward trend. Ags/Softs:  Underweight According to the USDA, private exporters reported sales of 258k MT of soybeans for delivery to China split between the current and next marketing year, which was supportive of soybean futures prices. A weaker USD also is supporting grains, and rallying corn futures. Wheat was slightly down, as a softer USD positive is being offset by favorable weather conditions in the Black Sea export regions that compete with the US. Chart 10Speculators Are Returning to WTI Chart 11USD Well Bid By High Uncertainty     Footnotes 1     “Product Supplied” is the US EIA’s measure of demand.  2     From The Life of Samuel Johnson LL.D. Vol 3, by James Boswell. 3    PADD stands for Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts. 4    US Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette estimates as much as 2.2mm b/d of crude oil production has been shut in because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Please see US oil production shut-ins top 2.2 million b/d during pandemic: DOE chief published by S&P Global Platts May 21, 2020 5    Please see our April 30, 2020, report Stand By For Heavy Rolls: June WTI Could Go Below $0.00/bbl, which examines the anomalous behavior of May-delivery WTI futures traded on the NYMEX last month, which may have contributed to this dramatic deviation from the rest of the US storage market. Markets will, at some point in the near future, be looking for a detailed post-mortem surrounding the events that occurred during the termination of trading of the NYMEX of futures delivering in May at Cushing, when WTI futures traded as low as -$40.32/bbl (i.e., negative $40.32/bbl). Part of the proximate cause of the anomaly appears to be a failure by the CME Group, which operates the NYMEX, and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regulates US futures exchanges, to ensure an orderly termination of trading in May 2020 WTI futures contracts. See also Column: U.S. commodities watchdog issues blunt warning over oil volatility published by reuters.com May 14, 2020. In future research, we will explore the implications a non-trivial probability of negative prices in the future poses for the oil and gas markets, particularly in re capex and investment generally.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

In the most recent Weekly Report we initiated a new long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade. One of the key drivers for this pair trade is the ebb and flow of owning versus renting and the current message is positive for homebuilders at the expense of REITs (bottom panel). Home ownership has suffered a setback and never reclaimed its pre GFC highs. However, there is pent up demand for single family homes, especially given the recent drubbing of interest rates which should bring first time home buyers back into the market (top panel). Millennials up to now have been more of a renter generation, but as household formation increases for the largest cohort in the US, homeownership will make a comeback. Bottom Line: Initiate a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade, and please see this Week’s Report for additional reasons why this intra-real estate will flourish. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P homebuilding and S&P REITs indexes are: BLBG: S5HOME – LEN, PHM, NVR, DHI, and BLBG: S5REITS – AMT, PLD, CCI, EQIX, DLR, SBAC, PSA, AVB, EQR, WELL, ARE, O, SPG, ESS, WY, MAA, VTR, DRE, PEAK, BXP, EXR, UDR, HST, REG, IRM, VNO, FRT, AIV, KIM, SLG, respectively.  

Highlights The good stock market = ‘growth defensives’ like technology that benefit from lower bond yields. The bad stock market = ‘value cyclicals’ like banks that suffer from lower bond yields. Structurally favour growth defensives given that ultra-low bond yields are here to stay. Adjust the sovereign bond portfolio to: Long 30-year US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos. Short 30-year German Bunds and French OATs. Fractal trade: Long 10-year Spanish Bonos, short 10-year New Zealand bonds. Feature It has become increasingly meaningless to talk about ‘the stock market’ as one entity. The stock market has split into two distinct markets: a ‘good stock market’ and a ‘bad stock market’. To be clear, the split started before the coronavirus crisis, but the crisis has hastened the break-up (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekThe Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market What distinguishes the good stock market from the bad stock market? The answer is the relationship with the bond yield. For the good market, the dominant message from lower bond yields is a valuation boom and higher prices (Chart I-2); but for the bad market, the dominant message from lower bond yields is a profits recession and lower prices. Chart I-2Tech Stocks Rally On Lower Bond Yields The Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market For the good stock market, the valuation uplift that comes from lower bond yields far outweighs the coronavirus induced slump to sales and profits. Conversely, for the bad stock market, the coronavirus induced slump to sales and profits far outweighs any valuation uplift from lower bond yields. For the ‘good stock market’, the valuation uplift from lower bond yields outweighs the coronavirus induced slump to sales and profits.  The valuation uplift from lower bond yields is greatest for growth stocks. This is because the further into the future that cashflows are, the greater the increase in their ‘net present values’ Moreover, this valuation uplift becomes exponential at ultra-low bond yields. As bond prices start to have less upside than downside, they become riskier. Hence, both components of the required return on growth stocks – the bond yield and the equity risk premium – shrink together, justifying the exponentially higher net present value (Chart I-3).   Chart I-3Tech Valuations Rise Exponentially On Lower Bond Yields Meanwhile, the coronavirus induced slump to sales and profits is greatest for cyclical stocks. For many cyclicals – such as airlines, hotels, and restaurants – the hit to sales, profits, and employment will be long-lasting, as consumer and business behaviour adapts to the post Covid-19 world. Hence: The good stock market = ‘growth defensives’ whose epitome is technology. The bad stock market = ‘value cyclicals’ whose epitome is banks (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Banks Sell Off On Lower Bond Yields Banks suffer a double whammy. Not only does the lower bond yield signify a structurally poor outlook for credit creation which constitutes bank ‘sales’, but the flattening yield curve also signifies a shrinking net interest (profit) margin. Euro area banks suffer an additional complication. They are exposed to the sovereign yield spread on ‘periphery’ bonds such as Italian BTPs over German bunds. A widening of such spreads signals heightening tensions within the euro area, which hurts the solvencies of periphery banks with large holdings of periphery bonds (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Euro Area Banks Also Sell Off On Wider Sovereign Yield Spreads It follows that euro area banks need two conditions to rally. High quality bond yields must rise, and peripheral euro area yield spreads must fall. Given that such a star alignment is likely to be the exception rather than the norm, euro area banks should be bought for the occasional countertrend rally when technical signals justify it. Right now, the required signal is for high-quality bonds to become technically overbought, presaging a tactical bout of bond underperformance and bank outperformance. However, our most-trusted technical indicator is not yet giving the required signal. Stay tuned (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Bonds Are Not Yet Technically Overbought In the meantime, we prefer to play the euro area’s increasing solidarity – specifically, to underwrite a €500bn coronavirus recovery plan – through relative value positions in sovereign bonds. In our recent webcast Why Leaving The Euro Would be MAD, But Mad Things Happen we pointed out that in the euro era, labour market competitiveness in Spain has improved by more than in France. Making it hard to justify the near 100bps yield premium on 30-year Spanish Bonos versus French OATs (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Yield Premium On Spanish Bonos Is Hard To Justify Since inception a year ago, our long 30-year US T-bonds and Italian BTPs versus 30-year German Bunds and Spanish Bonos is up by 15 percent. It is time to adjust this bond portfolio. Go long 30-year US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos versus 30-year German Bunds and French OATs. And take profit on long 10-year Italian BTPs versus 10-year Spanish Bonos. Are Ultra-Low Bond Yields Sustainable? At first glance, the divergence of the stock market into a booming good part and a languishing bad part might tempt investors to play long-term ‘mean reversion’: specifically, to sell growth defensives like technology and buy value cyclicals like banks. But be careful. The concept of mean reversion is only meaningful if the underlying trend is sideways – or in technical terms ‘stationary’. Statistics 101 warns us that if the underlying trend is not stationary, the concept of mean reversion – and indeed the much-abused concept of ‘standard deviation’ – is meaningless. If inflation persists below 2%, bond yields will remain ultra-low. Given that all investment is now just one big correlated trade to the bond yield, this raises a crucial question: is the bond yield stationary? Put another way, are bonds in an almighty bubble? Are bond yields unsustainably low, and at risk of a violent spike upwards? The answer depends on a further question: is sub-2 percent inflation unsustainably low? (Chart I-8) If inflation persists below central banks’ totemic 2 percent inflation target, then central banks will have no choice but to push and hold the monetary easing ‘pedal to the metal’. Therefore, bond yields will keep trending lower until, one by one, they reach the lower bound at around -1 percent. Chart I-8Is Sub-2 Percent Inflation Unsustainably Low? To us, the answer to this question is crystal clear. Not only is sub-2 percent inflation sustainable, it is the norm. Genuine price stability is not an arbitrary 2 percent inflation target that central banks can pluck out of the air. Rather, it is a steady state of broadly flat-lining prices that economies can remain in for centuries, so long as governments do not debase the broad money supply. Between 1675 and 1914 – when Great Britain was mostly on the gold standard – the price level barely budged, meaning inflation averaged near-zero for hundreds of years (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Inflation Averaged Near-Zero For Hundreds Of Years Today we have fiat money rather than the gold standard. However, the rapidly growing cryptocurrency asset-class is an embryonic 21st century gold standard ‘waiting in the wings.’ The mere fact that an alternative, and potentially superior, monetary system is waiting in the wings is a strong incentive for competent governments to preserve the value of fiat money. Which is to say, an incentive not to destroy the genuine price stability that advanced economies have now re-entered after a brief lapse in the 20th century. Ultra-Low Bond Yields Are Here To Stay, Structurally Favouring Growth Defensives It is in the gift of governments to destroy price stability should they desire. Witness Argentina, Venezuela or Zimbabwe. Yet these examples and the example of the 1970s teach us that when price stability is destroyed, inflation appears non-linearly, which is to say unpredictably and uncontrollably. This is because it suddenly becomes rational for governments to create money as fast as possible, and for consumers and firms to spend it as fast as possible. As the product of money supply and its velocity equals nominal demand, inflation skyrockets (Chart I-10). Chart I-10When Price Stability Is Destroyed, Inflation Appears Non-Linearly An early warning sign that governments are on the road to Venezuela is that central banks lose their independence. Or, at the very least, their inflation-targeting remits become diluted. Neither of these seem conceivable right now. Sub-2 percent inflation was the norm for hundreds of years. Never say never – but in the advanced economies the destruction of price stability is a tail-risk rather than a central threat. The upshot is that ultra-low bond yields are here to stay. Long-term investors should structurally own the good stock market – growth defensives – and structurally avoid the bad stock market – value cyclicals. That said, from time to time, there will be tactical countertrend opportunities to go long value cyclicals like banks. Stay tuned for those tactical opportunities. This leaves one final question: when all investment has just become one big correlated trade to the bond yield, how can investors take on uncorrelated positions to diversify? The answer is to take long-short positions within growth defensives, and within value cyclicals. For example, within growth defensives right now, stay tactically long personal products versus healthcare. Fractal Trading System* As discussed, Spanish Bonos offer good relative value. They are also technically oversold relative to other developed market sovereign bonds. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is long Spanish 10-year Bonos, short New Zealand 10-year bonds. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.5 percent. In other trades, long PLN/EUR quickly achieved its 2 percent profit target at which it was closed. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 62 percent. Chart I-11 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 Risk assets continue to ignore the dire state of the economy. “Don’t fight the Fed” will dictate investment policy for the coming months. Populism and supply-chain diversification will shape the world after COVID-19. Global stimulus will result in higher long-term inflation when the labor market returns to full employment. Asset prices are not ready for higher inflation rates. Precious metals, especially silver, will offer inflation protection. Stocks should structurally outperform bonds, even if they generate lower returns than in the past. Tech will continue to rise for now, but this sector will suffer when inflation turns higher. Feature Despite the continued collapse in economic activity, the S&P 500 remains resilient, bolstered by the largesse of the Federal Reserve and US government, and generous stimulus packages in other major economies. Stocks will likely climb even higher with this backdrop, but a violent second wave of COVID-19 infections may derail the scenario in the near term. The biggest risk, which is long-term in nature, is rising inflation. Public debt ratios will skyrocket in the G-10 and many emerging markets. Private debt loads, which are elevated in most countries, will also increase. Add rising populism and ageing populations into this mix and the incentive to push prices higher and reduce real debt loads becomes too enticing. Long-term investors must be wary. For the time being, overweight equities relative to bonds, but the specter of rising inflation suggests that growth stocks (e.g. tech) will not offer attractive long-term returns. Investors with an eye on multi-year returns should use the ongoing surge in growth stocks to strategically switch their portfolios toward small-cap equities, traditional cyclicals and precious metals. Economic Freefall Continues Most economic indicators paint a dismal picture for the US. Industrial activity is suffering tremendously. In April, industrial production collapsed by 15%, a pace matching the depth of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). The ISM New Orders-to-Inventories ratio remains extremely weak with no glimmer of a rebound in IP in May. The numbers for trucking activity and railway freight are equally poor. Chart I-1A Worried Consumer Saves The US labor market has not been this ill since the 1930s. 20.5 million jobs vanished in April and the unemployment rate soared to 14.7%, despite a 2.5 percentage point decline in the participation rate. The number of employees involuntarily working in part-time positions has surged by 5.9 million, which has hiked up the broader U-6 unemployment rate to 22.8%. Wage growth has rebounded smartly to 7.7%, but this is an illusion. Average hourly earnings rose only because low-wage workers in the leisure and hospitality fields bore the brunt of the pain, accounting for 37% of layoffs. The worst news is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) classifies any worker explicitly fired due to COVID-19 as temporarily laid off, but without a vaccine it is highly unlikely that employment in the leisure, hospitality or airline sectors will normalize anytime soon. Unsurprisingly, lockdowns have limited the ability of households to spend. Americans have boosted their savings rate to 13.1%, the highest level in 39 years, as they worry about catching a potentially deadly illness, losing their jobs, watching their incomes fall, or all of the above (Chart I-1). This double hit to both employment and consumer confidence sparked a 22% collapse in retail sales on an annual basis in April, the worst reading on record. Putting it all together, real GDP contracted at a 4.8% quarterly annualized rate in Q1 2020 and the Congressional Budget Office expects second-quarter annual growth to plummet to -37.7%. The New York Fed’s Weekly Economic Index suggests a more muted contraction of 11.1% (Chart I-2), which would still represent a post-war record. Investors must look beyond the gloom. The economic weakness is not limited to the US. In Europe and in emerging markets, retail sales and auto sales are disappearing at an unparalleled pace. Industrial production readings in those economies have been catastrophic and manufacturing PMIs are still in deeply contractionary territory. As a result, our Global Economic A/D line and our Global Synchronicity indicator continues to flash intense weakness (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The Worst Is Still To Come Chart I-3Dismal Growth, Everywhere   Chart I-4China Leads The Way Investors must look beyond the gloom. China’s experience with COVID-19 is instructive despite questions regarding the number of cases reported. China was the first country to witness the painful impact of COVID-19 and the quarantines needed to fight the disease. It was also the first country to control the virus’s spread and, most importantly, to escape the lockdown, along with being the first to enact economic stimulatory measures. The results are clear: industrial production, domestic new orders, and to a lesser extent, retail sales, are all experiencing V-shaped recoveries (Chart I-4). Even Chinese yields are rising, despite interest rate cuts by the People’s Bank of China. Accommodative Policy Matters Most The global policy “put option” is still in full force, which is boosting asset prices. A 41% rally in the median US stock reflects both a massive amount of funds inundating the financial system and a recovery that will take hold in the coming 12 months in response to this stimulus and the end of lockdowns. Global monetary policies have been even more aggressive than after the GFC. Interest rates have fallen as quickly and as broadly as they did around the Lehman bankruptcy. Moreover, unorthodox policy measures have become the norm (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Easy Policy, Everywhere In China, credit generation is quickly accelerating and has reached 28% of GDP, the highest in 2 years. Moreover, policymakers are emphasizing the need to create 9 million jobs in cities and keep the unemployment rate at 6%. Consequently, the recent rebound in construction activity will continue because it is a perfect medium to absorb excess workers. The ever-expanding quotas for local government special bonds to CNY3.75 trillion will also ensure that infrastructure spending energizes any recovery. Therefore, we expect Chinese imports of raw materials and machinery to accelerate into the second half of the year. The country’s orders of machine tools from Japan have already bottomed, which bodes well for overall Japanese orders (Chart I-6). Europe has also moved in the right direction. Government support continues to expand and combined public deficits will reach EUR 0.9 trillion, or 8.5% of GDP. Governmental guarantees have reached at least EUR1.4 trillion. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank’s balance sheet is swelling more quickly than during either the GFC or the euro area crisis (Chart I-7). Unsurprisingly, European shadow rates have collapsed to -7.6% and European financial conditions are the easiest they have been in 8 years. Chart I-6Will China's Rebound Matter? Chart I-7The ECB Is Aggressive   More importantly, COVID-19 has broken the taboo of common bond issuance in Europe. Last week, Chancellor Merkel, President Macron and EC President von der Leyen hatched a plan to issue common bonds that will finance a EUR 750 billion recovery fund as part of the European Commission Multiannual Financial Framework. The EC will then allocate EUR 500 billion of grants (not loans) to EU nations as long as they adhere to European principles. The unified front by the three most senior European politicians reflects elevated support for the EU among all European nations and an understanding that economic ruin in the smaller nations could capsize the core nations (Chart I-8). Hence, fiscal risk-sharing will increasingly become the norm in Europe. Unsurprisingly, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Greek bond spreads all narrowed significantly following the announcement. Chart I-8The Forces That Bind Chart I-9Negative Rates Are Here, Sort Of US policymakers have abandoned any semblance of orthodoxy. The Fed’s programs announced so far have lifted its balance sheet by $2.9 trillion and could generate an expansion to $11 trillion by year-end. Moreover, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has highlighted that there is “no limit” to what the Fed can do with its unconventional policy apparatus. The nature of the US funding market makes negative rates very dangerous and, therefore, highly doubtful in that country. Nonetheless, the Fed is willing to buy more paper from the public and private sectors to push the shadow rate and real interest rates further into negative territory (Chart I-9). Moreover, the Federal government has already bumped up the deficit by $3 trillion and the House has passed another $3 trillion in spending. Senate Republicans will pass some of this program to protect themselves in November. According to BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy service, a total escalation in the federal deficit of $5 trillion (or 23% of 2020 GDP) is extremely likely this year. Chart I-10The Fed Is Monetizing The Deficit Combined fiscal and monetary policy in the US will have a more invigorating impact on the recovery than the measures passed in 2008-09. They represent a larger share of output than during the GFC (10.5% versus 6% of GDP for the government spending and 15.2% versus 8.3% for the Fed’s balance sheet expansion). Moreover, the Fed is buying a much greater percentage of the Treasury’s issuance than during the GFC (Chart I-10). Therefore, the Fed is much closer to monetizing government debt than it was 11 years ago. The combined monetary and fiscal easing should result in a larger fiscal multiplier because the private sector is not financing as much of the government’s largesse. Thus, the increase in the private sector’s savings rate should be short-lived and the current account deficit will widen to reflect the greater fiscal outlays. Low real rates and a larger balance-of-payments disequilibrium should weaken the dollar which will ease US financial conditions further. A Trough In Inflation Maintaining incredibly easy monetary and fiscal conditions as the economy reopens will lead to higher inflation when the labor market reaches full employment. Core CPI has collapsed to 1.4% on an annual basis and to -2.4% on a three-month annualized basis, the lowest reading on record. The breakdown of the CPI report is equally dreadful (Chart I-11). However, CPI understates inflation because the basket measured by the BLS includes many areas of commerce currently not frequented by consumers. Items actually purchased by households, such as food, have experienced accelerating inflation in recent months. Fiscal risk-sharing will increasingly become the norm in Europe. Beyond this technicality, the most important factor behind the anticipated structural uptick in inflation is a large debt load burdening the global economy. Total nonfinancial debt in the US stands at 254% of GDP, 262% in the euro area, 380% in Japan, 301% in Canada, 233% in Australia, 293% in Sweden and 194% in emerging markets (Chart I-12). Historically, the easiest method for policymakers to decrease the burden of liabilities is inflation; the current political climate increases the odds of that outcome. Chart I-11Weak Core Chart I-12Record Debt, Everywhere   Households in the G-10 and emerging markets are angry. Growing inequalities, coupled with income immobility, have created dissatisfaction with the economic system (Chart I-13). Before the GFC, US households could gorge on debt to support their spending patterns, and inequalities went unnoticed. After the crisis revealed weakness in the household sector, banks tightened their credit standards and consumption slowed, constrained by a paltry expansion of the median household income. As a consequence, the American public increasingly supports left-wing economic policies (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Inequalities + Immobility = Anger Chart I-14The US Population's Shift To The Left COVID-19 is exacerbating the population’s discontent and highlighting economic disparities. The recession is hitting poor households in the US harder than the general population or highly skilled white-collar employees who can easily telecommute. Millennials, the largest demographic group in the US, are also irate. Their lifetime earnings were already lagging that of their parents because most millennials entered the job market in the aftermath of the GFC.1 Their income and balance sheet prospects were beginning to improve just as the pandemic shock struck. Finally, in response to the lockdowns and school closures caused by COVID-19, young families with children have to juggle permanent childcare and daily work demands from employers, resulting in a lack of separation between home and office.2  Economic populism will generate a negative supply shock, which will push up prices (Diagram I-1). BCA has espoused the theme of de-globalization since 20143 and COVID-19 will accelerate this trend. Firms do not want fragile supply chains that fall victim to random shocks; instead, they are looking to diversify their sources (Chart I-15). Additionally, workers and households want protection from foreign competition and perceived unfair trade practices. This sentiment is evident in a lack of trust toward China (Chart I-16). China-bashing will become a mainstay of American politics and rising tariffs will continue to increase the cost of doing business (Chart I-17). Last year’s Sino-US trade war was a precursor of events to come. Diagram I-1The Inflationary Impact Of A Stifled Supply Side Chart I-15COVID-19 Accelerates The Desire To Repatriate Production Chart I-16China As A Political Piñata Chart I-17The Cost Of Doing International Business Will Rise Chart I-18A Problem For Productivity The rate of capital stock accumulation does not bode well for the supply side of the economy. Productivity trails the path of capex, with a long time lag. The 10-year moving average of non-residential investment in the US bottomed three years ago. Its subsequent uptick should enhance average productivity. However, the growth of the real net capital stock per employee remains weak and will not strengthen because companies are curtailing spending in the recession. Moreover, the efficiency of the capital stock is well below its long-term average and probably will not mend if supply chains are made less efficient. These factors are negative for productivity and thus, the capacity to expand the supply side of the economy (Chart I-18). Finally, a significant share of capital stock is stranded and uneconomical. The airline industry is a good example. Going forward, regulations will keep the middle row seats empty. Fewer filled seats imply that the capital stock has lost significant value, which creates a negative supply shock for the industry. To break even, airlines will have to raise the price of fares. IATA estimates that fares will increase by 43%, 49% and 54% on North American, European and Asian routes, respectively (Table I-1). The same analysis can be applied to restaurants, hotels, cinemas, etc. – industries that will have to curtail their supplies and change their practices in response to COVID-19. Table I-1The Inflationary Impact Of Supply Cuts Chat I-19Pandemics Boost Wages While rising populism will hurt the supply side of the economy, it will also hike demand. Redistribution is an outcome of populism. Corporate tax hikes hurt rich households that receive more than 50% of their income from profits. High marginal tax rates on high earners will also curtail their disposable income. Shifting a bigger share of national income to the middle class will depress the savings rate and boost demand. It is estimated that the middle class’s marginal propensity to spend is 90% compared with 60% for richer households. In fact, in the past 40 years, the shift in income distribution has curtailed demand by 3% of GDP. Pandemics also increase real wages. Òscar Jordà, Sanjay Singh, and Alan Taylor demonstrated that European real wages accelerated following pandemics (Chart I-19). Fewer willing workers contributed to the climb in real wages by decreasing the supply of labor. Higher real wages are positive for consumption. China-bashing will become a mainstay of American politics and rising tariffs will continue to increase the cost of doing business. Populism will also put upward pressure on public spending. Governments globally and in the US are bailing out the private sector to an even larger extent than they did after the GFC. Discontent with expanding inequalities and the perceived lack of accountability of the corporate sector4 will push the government to be more involved in economic management than it was after 2008. Moreover, the post-2008 environment showed that austerity was negative for private sector income growth and the economic welfare of the middle class (Chart I-20). Thus, government spending and deficits as a share of GDP will be structurally higher for the coming decade. Higher deficits mechanically boost aggregate demand which is inflationary if the advance of aggregate supply is sluggish. Chat I-20Austerity Hurts Central banks will likely enable these inflationary dynamics. The Fed knows that it has missed its objective by a cumulative 4% since former Chairman Ben Bernanke set an official inflation target of 2% in 2012. Thus, it has lost credibility in its ability to generate 2% inflation, which is why the 10-year breakeven rate stands at 1.1% and not within the 2.3%-2.5% range that is consistent with its mandate. Moreover, the Fed is worried that the immediate deflationary impact of COVID-19 will further depress inflation expectations and reinforce low realized inflation. This logic partly explains why the Fed currently recommends more stimulus and the Federal Open Market Committee will be reluctant to remove accommodation anytime soon. Inflation will likely move toward 4-5% after the US economy regains full employment. Central banks may fall victim to growing populism. Both the Democrats and Republicans want control over the US Fed. If Congress changes the Fed’s mandate, there would be great consequences for inflation. Prior to the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, the Fed’s mandate was to foster full employment conditions without any explicit mention of inflation. Therefore, the Fed kept the unemployment rate well below NAIRU for most of the post-war period. This tight labor market was a key ingredient behind the inflationary outbreak of the 1970s. After the reform act explicitly imposed a price stability directive on top of the Fed’s employment mandate, the unemployment rate spent a much larger share of time above NAIRU, which contributed to the structural decline in inflation after 1982 (Chart I-21). Chat I-21The Fed's Mandate Matters Finally, demographics will also feed inflationary pressures. The global support ratio peaked in 2014 as the number of workers per dependent decreased due to ageing of the population in the West and China (Chart I-22). A declining support ratio depresses the growth of the supply side of the economy because the dependents continue to consume. In today’s world, dependents are retirees, who have higher healthcare spending needs. This healthcare spending will accrue additional government spending. Moreover, it will continue to push up healthcare inflation, which will contribute to higher overall inflation (Chart I-23). Chat I-22Demographics: From Deflation To Inflation Chat I-23Aging Will Feed Healthcare Inflation   Bottom Line: COVID-19 has highlighted inequalities in the population and will accelerate a move toward populism that started four years ago. Consequently, the supply side of the economy will grow more slowly than it did in prior decades, while greater government interventions and redistributionist policies will boost aggregate demand. Additionally, monetary policy will probably stay easy for too long and demographic factors will compound the supply/demand mismatch. Inflation will likely move toward 4-5% after the US economy regains full employment, but will not surge to 1970s levels. Investment Implications Chat I-24Breakevens Will Listen To Commodities Extremely accommodative economic policy and a shift to higher inflation will dominate asset markets for the next five years or more. Breakevens in the G-10 are pricing in permanently subdued inflation for the coming decade, which creates a large re-pricing opportunity if inflation troughs when the labor market reaches full employment. Investors cannot wait for inflation to turn the corner to bet on higher breakevens. After the GFC, core CPI bottomed in October 2010, but US breakevens hit their floor at 0.15% in December 2008. Instead, a rebound in commodity prices and a turnaround in the global economic outlook may signal when investors should buy breakevens (Chart I-24). Chat I-25Deleterious US Balance Of Payments Dynamics A repricing of inflation expectations will depress real rates. Central banks want to see inflation expectations normalize towards 2.3%-2.5% before signaling an end to accommodation. Moreover, political pressures and high debt loads will likely loosen their reaction functions to higher breakeven. As a result, real interest rates will decline because nominal ones will not rise by as much as inflation expectations. This is exactly what central banks want to achieve because it will foster a stronger recovery. Our US fixed-income strategists favor TIPS over nominal Treasurys. The dollar will probably depreciate in the post-COVID-19 environment. As we wrote last month, the US is the most aggressive reflator among major economies. The twin deficit will expand while US real rates will remain depressed. This is very negative for the USD, especially in an environment where the US money supply is outpacing global money supply (Chart I-25).5 Additionally, Chinese reflation will stimulate global industrial production, which normally hurts the dollar. EM currencies are cheap enough that long-term investors should begin to bet on them (Chart I-26), especially if global inflation structurally shifts higher. Precious metals win from the combination of higher inflation, lower real rates and a weaker dollar. However, silver is more attractive than gold. Unlike the yellow metal, it trades at a discount to the long-term inflation trend (Chart I-27). Moreover, silver has more industrial uses, especially in the solar panel and computing areas. Thus, the post-COVID-19 recovery and the need to double up supply chains will boost industrial demand for silver and lift its price relative to gold. Our FX strategists recommend selling the gold-to-silver ratio.6 Chat I-26Cheap EM FX Chat I-27Silver Is The Superior Inflation Hedge   Chat I-28Still Time To Favor Stocks Over Bonds Investors should favor stocks over bonds. This statement is more an indictment of the poor value of bonds and their lack of defense against rising inflation than a structural endorsement of stocks. The equity risk premium is elevated. To make this call, we need to account for the lack of stationarity of this variable and adjust for the expected growth rate of earnings. Nonetheless, once those factors are accounted for, our ERP indicator continues to flash a buy signal in favor of equities at the expense of bonds (Chart I-28). Moreover, bonds tend to underperform stocks when inflation trends up for a long time (Table I-2).   Table I-2Rising Inflation Flatters Stocks Over Bonds Chart I-29Bonds Are Prohibitively Expensive In absolute terms, G-7 government bonds are also vulnerable, both tactically and structurally. They are overbought and currently trade at their greatest premium to fair value since Q4 2009 and Q1 1986, two periods followed by sharp rebounds in yields (Chart I-29). Moreover, the previous experience with QE programs shows that even if real rates diminish, the reflationary impact of aggressive monetary policy on breakeven rates is enough to increase nominal interest rates (Chart I-30). Additionally, as our European Investment Strategy team indicates, bond yields are close to their practical lower bound, which creates a negative skew to their return profile.7 This asymmetric return distribution destroys their ability to hedge equity risk going forward, making this asset class less appealing to investors. This problem is particularly salient in Europe and Japan. A lower dollar, which is highly reflationary for global growth, will likely catalyze the rise in yields.   Chart I-30QE Will Lift Breakevens And Yields As long as real rates remain under downward pressure, the window to own stocks remains open, even if stocks continue to churn. Equities are expensive, but when yields are taken into consideration, their adjusted P/E is in line with the historical average (Chart I-31). Moreover, periods of weak growth associated with lower real interest rates can foster a large expansion in multiples (Chart I-32). Chart I-31Low Bond Yields Allow High Stock Multiples Chart I-32Multiples Will Rise Further As The Fed Floods The World With Low Rates Whether to have faith in stocks in absolute terms on a long-term basis is complicated by our view on inflation and populism. Strong inflation will increase nominal rates. Moreover, low productivity coupled with higher real wages, less-efficient supply chains and higher taxes will accentuate the margin compression that higher inflation typically creates. Thus, equities are expected to generate poor real returns over the long term, even if they beat bonds. Chart I-33Tech EPS Leadership Tech stocks are another structural problem for equities. Including Amazon, Google and Facebook, tech stocks account for 41% of the S&P 500’s market cap. As our US Equity Strategy service explains, wherever tech goes, so does the US market.8 Tech stocks are the current market darling. Today, the tech sector is the closest thing to a safe-haven in the mind of market participants, because a post-COVID-19 environment will favor tech spending (telecommuting, e-commerce, cloud computing, etc.). The problem for long-term investors is that this view is the most consensus view. Already, investors expect the tech sector to generate the highest EPS outperformance relative to the rest of the S&P 500 in more than 15 years (Chart I-33). Moreover, in a low-yield environment, investors are particularly willing to bid up the multiples of growth stocks such as tech equities because low interest rates result in muted discount factors for long-term cash flows. When should investors begin betting against the tech sector? Backed by a powerful narrative, tech stocks are evolving into a mania. Yet, contrarian investors understand, being too early to sell a mania can be deadly. Bond yields should not be relied on to signal an end to the bubble. During most of the 1990s, tech would outperform the market when Treasury yields declined. However, when the tech outperformance became manic, yields became irrelevant. From the fall of 1998 to the beginning of 2000, 10-year yields rose from 4.2% to 6.8%, yet the tech sector outperformed the S&P 500 by 127%. More recently, yields rose from 1.33% in the summer of 2016 to 3.25% in November 2018, but tech outperformed the broader market by 39%.   Investors should favor stocks over bonds. Instead, higher inflation will be the key factor to end the tech sector’s infallibility. Since the 1990s, higher core inflation has led periods of tech underperformance by roughly six months. This relationship also held at the apex of the tech bubble in the second half of the 1990s (Chart I-34). Relative tech forward EPS suffers when core inflation rises, as the rest of the S&P 500 is more geared to higher nominal GDP growth. In essence, if nominal growth is less scarce, then the need to bid up growth stocks diminishes. Moreover, the dollar will likely be the first early signal because it leads nominal GDP. As a result, a weak dollar leads to a contraction in tech relative multiples by approximately 9 months (Chart I-35). Chart I-34Tech Hates Inflation... Chart I-35...And A Soft Dollar   We recommend long-term investors shift their portfolios toward industrial equities when inflation turns the corner. As a corollary, the low exposure of European and Japanese stocks to the tech sector suggests these cheap bourses will finally reverse their more-than-a-decade-long underperformance at the same time. This strategy means that even if the S&P 500 generates negative real returns during the coming decade, investors could still eke out positive returns from their stock holdings. Higher inflation will be the key factor to end the tech sector’s infallibility. Chart I-36The Time For Commodities Is Coming Back Finally, commodities plays are also set to shine in the coming decade. Commodities are very cheap and oversold relative to stocks (Chart I-36). Commodities outperform equities in an environment where inflation rises, real rates decline and the dollar depreciates. Consequently, materials and energy stocks may be winners. As a corollary, Latin American and Australian equities should also reverse their decade-long underperformance when inflation and the dollar turn the corner. This month's Section II Special Report is an in depth study of the Spanish Flu pandemic, written by our colleague Amr Hanafy and also published in BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation service. Amr thoroughly analyses the evolution of the 100-year old pandemic and which measures mattered most to contain the virus and allow a return to economic normality. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 28, 2020 Next Report: June 25, 2020 II. Lessons From The Spanish Flu What Can 1918/1919 Teach Us About COVID-19?   “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana – 1905 Chart II-1Coronavirus: As Contagious But Not As Deadly As Spanish Flu Today’s economy is very different to that of 100 years ago. Many countries then were in the middle of World War I (which ended in November 1918). The characteristics of the Spanish Flu which struck the world in 1918 and 1919 were also different to this year’s pandemic. COVID-19 is almost as contagious as the Spanish Flu, but it is much less deadly (Chart II-1). Healthcare systems and treatments today are far more advanced than those of a century ago: many people who caught Spanish flu died of complications caused by bacterial pneumonia, given the absence of antibiotics. Influenza viruses tend to mutate rapidly: the influenza virus in 1918 first mutated to become far more virulent in its second wave, and then to become much milder. Coronaviruses have a “proofreading” capacity and mutate less easily.9  Nevertheless, an analysis of the pandemic of 100 years ago provides a number of insights into the current crisis, particularly now that policymakers are easing social-distancing rules to help the economy, even at the risk of more cases and deaths. Among the lessons of 1918-1919: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) do lower mortality rates. The speed at which NPIs are implemented and the period of implementation are as important as the number of measures taken. Removing or relaxing measures too early can lead to a renewed rise in mortality rates. It is hard to compare current fiscal and monetary policies to those taken during the 1918 pandemic, since policy in both areas was already easy before the pandemic as a result of the world war. However, a severe pandemic would certainly call for a wartime-like fiscal and monetary response. The economy was negatively impacted by the pandemic in 1918-19 but, despite the shock to industrial activity and employment, the economy subsequently rebounded quickly, in a V-shaped recovery. Introduction Predicting how the economy will react to the COVID-19 pandemic is hard. Governments and policymakers face multiple uncertainties: How effective are different containment measures? Will cases and deaths rebound quickly if lockdown measures are eased? When will the coronavirus disappear? When will a vaccine be ready? With an event unprecedented in the experience of anyone alive today, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from history. For this Special Report, we attempt to draw some parallels between the current situation and the 1918-19 Spanish flu. We focus on the different containment efforts implemented, the role that fiscal and monetary policies played, the impact on markets and the economy, and whether history can throw any light on how the COVID-19 crisis might pan out. The 1918 Spanish Flu Chart II-2The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most lethal in modern history. Soldiers returning from World War I helped spread the pandemic across the globe. The first recorded case is believed to have been in an army camp in Kansas. While there is no official count, researchers estimate that about 500 million people contracted the virus globally, with a mortality rate of between 5% and 10%. The pandemic occurred over three waves in 1918 and 1919 – the first in the spring of 1918, the second (and most deadly) in the fall of 1918, and the third in spring 1919 (Chart II-2). In the US alone, official data estimate that around 500,000 deaths (or over 25% of all deaths) in 1918 and 1919 were caused by pneumonia and influenza.10 The pandemic moved swiftly to Europe and reached Asia by mid-1918, but became more lethal only towards the end of the year (Map II-1).11 Map II-1The Spread Of Influenza Through Europe Initially, scientists were puzzled by the origin of the influenza and its biology. It was not until a decade later, in the early 1930s, that Richard Shope isolated the particular influenza virus from infected pigs, confirming that a virus caused the Spanish Flu, not a bacterium as most had thought. Many of those who caught this strain of influenza died as a result of their lungs filling with fluid in a severe form of pneumonia. In reporting death rates, then, it is considered best practice to include deaths from both influenza and pneumonia. The first wave had almost all the hallmarks of a seasonal flu, albeit of a highly contagious strain. Symptoms were similar and mortality rates were only slightly higher than a normal influenza. The first wave went largely unnoticed given that deaths from pneumonia were common then. US public health reports show that the disease received little attention until it reappeared in a more severe form in Boston in September 1918.12 Most countries did not begin investigating and reporting cases until the second wave was underway (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Most Countries Began Reporting Only When The Second Wave Hit This second wave – which was more lethal because the virus had mutated – had a unique characteristic. Unlike the typical influenza mortality curve – which is usually “U” shaped, affecting mainly the very young and elderly – the 1918 influenza strain had a “W”-shaped mortality curve – impacting young adults as well as old people (Chart II-4). This pattern was evident in all three waves, but most pronounced during the second wave. The reason for this was that the infection caused by the influenza became hyperactive, producing a “cytokine storm” – when mediators secreted from the immune system result in severe inflammation.13 Simply put, as the virus became virulent, the body’s immune system overworked to fight it. Younger people, with strong immune systems, suffered most from this phenomenon. Chart II-4A Unique Characteristic: Impacting Younger Adults By the summer of 1919, the pandemic was over, since those who had been infected had either died or recovered, therefore developing immunity. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess if “herd immunity” was achieved. However, some historical accounts and research – particularly for army groups in the US and the UK – suggest that those exposed to the disease in the first mild wave were not affected during the second more severe wave.14 The failure to define the causative pathogen at the time made development of a vaccine impossible. Nevertheless, some treatments and remedies showed modest success. These varied from using a serum – obtained from people who had recovered, who therefore had antibodies against the disease – to simple symptomatic drugs and various oils and herbs. The Effectiveness Of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) Chart II-5Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough What we today call “social distancing” showed positive effects during the 1918-19 pandemic. These included measures very similar to those applied today: school closures, isolation and quarantines, bans on some sorts of public gatherings, and more. However, there were few travel bans. The number of passengers carried during the months of the pandemic did noticeably decline though (Chart II-5). Table II-1, based on research by Hatchett, Mecher and Lipsitch, breaks down NPIs by type for 17 major US cities. Most cities implemented a wide range of interventions. But it was not only the type of NPIs implemented that made a difference, but also the speed and length of implementation. Further research by Markel, Lipman and Navarro based on 43 US cities shows that the median number of days between the first reported influenza case and the first NPI implementation was over two weeks. The median period during which various NPIs were implemented was about six weeks (Table II-2). Table II-1Measures Applied Then Are Very Similar To Those Applied Today Table II-2NPIs Were Implemented Only For Short Periods Markel, Lipman and Navarro's findings show that a rapid public-health response was an important factor in reducing the mortality rate by slowing the rate of infection, what we now refer to as “flattening the curve.” There were major differences in cities’ policies: both the speed at which they implement NPIs, and the length of the implementation period. Chart II-6 shows that: Cities that acted quickly to implement NPIs slowed the rate of infections and deaths (Chart II-6, panel 1) Cities that acted quickly had lower mortality rates from influenza and pneumonia (Chart II-6, panel 2) Cities that implemented NPIs for longer periods had fewer deaths (Chart II-6, panel 3) Chart II-7 quantifies the number of NPIs taken, the time it took to implement the measures, and the length of NPIs to gauge policy strictness. Cities with stricter enforcement had lower death rates than those with laxer measures. Chart II-6Fast Response And Longer Implementation Led To Fewer Deaths... Chart II-7...So Did Policy Strictness     For example, Kansas City, less than a week after its first reported case, had implemented quarantine and isolation measures. By the second week, schools, churches, and other entertainment facilities closed. Schools reopened a month later (in early November) but quickly shut again until early January 1919. While we do not have definitive dates on when each NPI was lifted, some sort of protective measures in Kansas City were in place for almost 170 days. By contrast, Philadelphia, one of the cities hardest hit by Spanish Flu, took more than a month to implement any measures. Its tardiness meant that it reached a peak mortality rate much more quickly: in 13 days compared to 31 days for Kansas City. Even after the first reported case, the Liberty Loans Parade was still held on September 28, 1918 – with the knowledge that hundreds of thousands of spectators might be vulnerable to infection.15,16 It was not until a few days later that institutions were closed and a ban on public gatherings was imposed. Many other cities also held a Liberty Loans Parade, including Pittsburgh and Washington DC, but Philadelphia’s was the deadliest. Studies also show that relaxing interventions too early could be as damaging as implementing them too late. St. Louis, for example, was quick to lift restrictions and suffered particularly badly in the second wave as a result. It later reinstated NPIs up until end of February 1919. Other cities that eased restrictions too early (San Francisco and Minneapolis, for example) also suffered from a second swift, albeit milder, increase in weekly excess death rates from pneumonia and influenza (Chart II-8). Chart II-8Relaxing Lockdown Measures Too Early Can Lead To A Second Rise In Deaths... Chart II-9...And So Can Highly Effective Measures Of course, NPIs cannot be implemented indefinitely. A recent research paper by Bootsma and Ferguson raises the point that suppressing a pandemic may not be the best strategy because it just leaves some people susceptible to infection later. They argue that highly effective social distancing measures, which allow a susceptible pool of people to reintegrate into society when the measures are lifted, are likely to lead to a resurgence in infections and fatalities in a second peak (Chart II-9).17 They suggest an optimal level of control measures to reduce R (the infection rate) to a value that makes a significant portion of the population immune once measures are lifted.  The Impact Of The Spanish Flu On The Economy And Markets How did the Spanish Flu pandemic affect the economy? Many pandemic researchers ignore the official recession identified by the NBER during the months of the pandemic (between August 1918 and March 1919).18 The reason is that most of the evidence indicates that the economic effects of the 1918-19 pandemic were short-term and relatively mild.19 Disentangling drivers of the economy is, indeed, tricky given that WW1 ended in November 1918. However, it is easy to underestimate the negative impact of the pandemic since the war had such a big impact on the economy, as well as investor and public sentiment. Various research papers support the fact that, while the pandemic did indeed have an adverse effect on the economy, NPIs did not just depress mortality rates, but also sped the post-pandemic economic recovery.20 Research by Correia, Sergio, and Luck showed that the areas most severely affected by the pandemic saw a sharp and persistent decline in real economic activity, whereas cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively, experienced a relative increase in economic activity post the pandemic.21 Their findings are based on the increase in manufacturing employment after the pandemic compared to before it (1919 versus 1914). However, note that the rise of manufacturing payrolls in 1919 was high everywhere given the return of soldiers post-WWI. The researchers also note that those cities hardest hit by the pandemic also saw a negative impact on manufacturing activity, the stock of durable goods, and bank assets. Chart II-10Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary Because Spanish flu disproportionately killed younger adults, many families lost their breadwinner. In economic terms, this implies both a negative supply shock and negative demand shock. If fewer employees are available to produce a certain good, supply will fall. The same reduction in employment also implies reduced income and therefore lower purchasing power. Both cases will result in a decrease in output. However, the change in prices depends on the decline of supply relative to demand. In 1918-19, the impact was disinflationary: demand declined by more than supply, and both spending and consumer prices fell during the pandemic (Chart II-10). US factory employment fell by over 8% between March 1918 and March 1919 – the period from the beginning of the first wave until the end of the second wave. It is important to note, however, that few businesses went bankrupt during the pandemic years (Chart II-11). Additionally, the November 1918 Federal Reserve Bulletin highlighted that many cities, including New York, Kansas City, and Richmond, experienced a shortage of labor due to the influenza.22 Factory employment in New York fell by over 10% during this period. The link between the labor shortages and the decline in industrial production is unclear. Industrial activity in the US peaked just before the second wave, contracting by over 20% during the second wave (Chart II-12). Various industries reported disruptions: automobile production fell by 67%, anthracite coal production and shipments fell by around 45%, and railroad freight revenues declined by over seven billion ton-miles (Chart II-12, panels 2, 3 & 4). However, some of this decline is attributed to falling defense production after the war. Chart II-11Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners Chart II-12Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly   Chart II-13The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic Chart II-14Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started The equity market moved in a broad range in 1915-1919 and fell sharply only ahead of the 1920 recession (Chart II-13). Seemingly, stock market participants were more focused on the war than the pandemic. The lack of reporting of the pandemic could have contributed to this: newspapers were encouraged to avoid carrying bad news for reasons of patriotism and did not widely cover the pandemic until late 1918.23 The Federal Reserve played an active role in funding the government’s spending on the war, and so monetary policy was very easy during the pandemic – but for other reasons. The Fed used its position as a lender to the banking system to facilitate war bond sales.16 Interest rates were cut in 1914 and 1915 even before the US entered the war. The US economy had been in recession between January 1913 and December 1914. Policy rates remained low throughout 1916 and 1917 and slightly rose in 1918 and 1919. It was not until 1920 that Federal Reserve Bank System tightened policy rapidly to choke off inflation, which accelerated to over 20% in mid-1920 – rising inflation being a common post-war phenomenon (Chart II-14). The Lessons Of 1918-19 For The Coronavirus Pandemic Non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue to be implemented until a vaccine, effective therapeutic drugs, or mass testing is available. Relaxing measures prematurely is as damaging as a tardy reaction to the pandemic. Reacting quickly and imposing multiple measures for longer periods not only reduces mortality rates, but also improves economic outcomes post-crisis. The economy suffers in the short-term: supply and demand shocks lead to lower output. The demand shock however is larger leading to lower prices and disinflationary pressures, at least during and immediately after the pandemic.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we maintained a positive disposition toward stocks, especially at the expense of government bonds. The global economy may be in the midst of its most severe contraction since the Great Depression, but betting against stocks is too dangerous when fiscal and monetary policy are both as easy as they are today. In essence, don’t fight the Fed. This view remains in place, even if the short-term risk/reward ratio for holding stocks is deteriorating. On a cyclical basis, the same factors that made us willing buyers of stocks remain broadly in place. Stocks are not as cheap as they were in late March, but monetary conditions have only eased further as real interest rates weakened. Additionally, our Speculation Indicator has eased, which indicates that contrary to many commentators’ perceptions, speculation is not rampant. Confirming this intuition, the equity risk premium remains elevated (even when one takes into account its lack of stationarity) and expected growth rates of earnings are still very low. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator is finally flashing a strong buy signal. Tactically, equities are still overbought. We have had four 5% or more corrections since March 23. More of them are in the cards. However, the most likely outcome for the S&P 500 this summer is a churning pattern, not a major downward move below 2700. The median stock is still 26% below its August 2018 low and only a fraction of equities on the NYSE trade above their 30-week moving average. These indicators do not scream that a major correction is on the horizon, especially when policy is as accommodative as it is today. We continue to recommend investors take advantage of the supportive backdrop for stocks by buying equities relative to bonds. In contrast to global bourses, government bonds are still massively overbought on a cyclical basis and trading at their largest premium to fair value since Q4 2008 and late 1985. Additionally, the vast sums of both monetary and fiscal stimulus injected in the economy should lift inflation expectations and thus, bond yields. The yield curve is therefore slated to steepen further. Since we last published, the dollar has not meaningfully depreciated, but the DXY is trying to breakdown while our composite technical indicator is making lower highs. It is too early to gauge whether the recent rebound in the IDR, the MXN, or the ZAR is anything more than an oversold bounce, but if it were to continue, it would indicate that the expensive greenback is starting to buckle under the weight of the quickly expanding twin deficit. The widening in the current account deficit that will result from extraordinarily loose fiscal policy means that the large increase in money supply by the Fed will leak out of the US economy. This process is highly bearish for the dollar. Ultimately, the timing of the dollar’s weakness will all boil down to global growth. As signs are building up that global growth is bottoming, odds are rising that the dollar will finally breakdown. Get ready for a meaningful downward move over the coming months. Finally, commodities seem to be gaining traction. The Continuous Commodity Index’s A/D line is quickly moving up and our Composite Technical Indicator is quickly rising from extremely oversold levels. Oil will hold the key for the broad complex. Oil supply has started to adjust lower and oil demand is set to improve starting June/July as the global economy re-opens, fueled with massive amounts of stimulus. As a result, inventories should start to meaningfully decline this summer, which will support the recent recovery in oil prices. If oil can rebound further, industrial commodities will follow. Finally, gold is a mixed bag in the near term. The dollar is set to weaken significantly and inflation breakevens to move higher, which will mitigate the negative impact of declining risk aversion. Silver is a superior play to gold as it will benefit from a recovery in global growth. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Reid Cramer et al., The Emerging Millennial Wealth Gap, Divergent Trajectories, Weak Balance Sheets, and Implications for Social Policy, New America, Oct 2019. 2 https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-normal-amid-coronavirus-working-from-home-while-schooling-the-kids-11584437400 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient," dated June 27, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "May 2020," dated April 30, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "A Few Trades Amidst A Pandemic," dated May 22, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "European Investors Left Defenceless," dated May 21, 2020, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report "Debunking Earnings," dated May 19, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see the Q&A with immunologist and Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty, published by BCA Research April 1st 2020: BCA Research Special Report, “Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers,” available at bcaresearch.com 10 Please see “Leading Cause of Death, 1990-1998,” CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 Please see Ansart S, Pelat C, Boelle PY, Carrat F, Flahault A, Valleron AJ, “Mortality burden of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in Europe,” NCBI. 12 Please see Public Health Report, vol. 34, No. 38, Sept. 19, 1919. 13 Please see Qiang Liu, Yuan-hong Zhou, Zhan-qiu Yang Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan; 13(1): 3–10. 14 Please see Shope, R. (1958) Public Health Rep. 73, 165–178. 15 The Liberty Loans Parade was intended to promote the sale of government bonds to pay for World War One. 16 Please see Hatchett RJ, Mecher CE, Lipsitch M (2007) "Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic,"PNAS 104: 7582–7587. 17 Please see Bootsma M, Ferguson N, “The Effect Of Public Health Measures On The 1918 Influenza Pandemic In U.S. Cities,” PNAS (2007). 18 Please see https://www.nber.org/cycles.html 19 Please see https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-development/res…12               Please see https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/03/fight-the-pandemic-save-the-economy-lessons-from-the-1918-flu.html. 20 Please see Correia, Sergio and Luck, Stephan and Verner, Emil, Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu (March 30, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3561560 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3561560. 21 Please see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935- and Federal Reserve Board, 1914-1935. "November 1918," Federal Reserve Bulletin (November 1918). 22 Please see https://newrepublic.com/article/157094/americas-newspapers-covered-pandemic. 23 Please see https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_role_during_wwi.