消費者
Highlights The global economy will contract at its fastest pace since the early 1930s, but will not slump into a depression. Easy monetary conditions, an extremely expansive fiscal policy, and solid bank and household balance sheets are crucial to the economic outlook. Risk assets remain attractive. The dollar and bonds will soon move from bull to bear markets. The credit market offers some attractive opportunities. Stocks are vulnerable to short-term profit-taking, but the cyclical outlook remains bright. Favor energy and consumer discretionary equities. Feature What a difference a month makes. US and global equities have rallied by 31.4% and 28.3% from their March lows, respectively. Last month we recommended investors shift the weighting of their portfolios to stocks over bonds. April’s dramatic turnaround has not altered our positive view of equities on a 12- to 24-month basis, especially relative to government bonds. However, the probability of near-term profit taking is significant. The spectacular dislocation in the oil market also has grabbed headlines. This was a capitulation event. Hence, assets linked to oil are now cyclically attractive, even if they remain volatile in the coming weeks. It is time to buy energy equities, especially firms with solid balance sheets and proven dividend records. Under the IMF’s base case, the resulting output loss will total $9 trillion. Finally, the Federal Reserve’s large liquidity injections have dulled the dollar’s strength. While the USD still has some upside risk in the near term, investors should continue to transfer capital into foreign currencies. A weaker dollar will be the catalyst to lift Treasury yields and will contribute to the outperformance of energy stocks. Dismal Growth Versus Vigorous Policy Responses Chart I-1Consumer Spending Is In Freefall The economic lockdowns and the collapse in consumer confidence continue to take their toll on the US and global economies (Chart I-1). The eventual end of the shelter-at-home orders and the progressive re-opening of the economy will halt this trend. The rapid monetary and fiscal easing worldwide will allow growth to recover smartly in the second half of the year, but only after authorities loosen extreme social distancing measures. The Economy Is In Freefall… First-quarter US growth is already as weak as it was at the depth of the recession that followed the Great Financial Crisis. The second quarter will be even more anemic. Our Live-Trackers for both the US and global economies either continue to collapse or have flat-lined at rock-bottom levels (Chart I-2). US industrial production is falling at a 21% quarterly annualized rate and the weakness in the PMI manufacturing survey warns that the worst is yet to come. In March, retail sales contracted by 8.7% compared with February, which was the poorest reading on record, and year-on-year comparisons will only deteriorate further. Annual GDP growth could fall below -11% next quarter with both the industrial and consumer sectors in shock, according to the New York Fed Weekly Economic Index (Chart I-3). Chart I-2No Hope From The Live Trackers Chart I-3Real GDP Growth Is Melting The IMF expects the recession to eclipse the post GFC-slump, in both advanced and emerging economies. Its most recent World Economic Outlook describes base-case 2020 growth of -5.9%, -7.5%, and -1.0% in the US, Eurozone and emerging markets, respectively. This compares with -2.5%, -4.5% and 2.8% each in 2009. If a second wave of infections forces renewed lockdowns in the fall, then 2020 growth could be 5.12% and 4.49% lower than baseline in developed markets and emerging markets, respectively. Under the IMF’s base case, the resulting output loss will total $9 trillion in the coming 3 years (Chart I-4). Chart I-4An Enormous Output Gap Is Forming Chart I-5Disinflation Build-Up An output gap of the magnitude depicted by the IMF will dampen inflation for the next 12 to 24 months. In addition to the shortfall in aggregate demand, imploding economic confidence and the lag effect of the Fed’s monetary tightening in 2018 will pull down the velocity of money even further. This combination will reduce US inflation to 1.5% or lower (Chart I-5, top panel). The Price Paid component of both the Philly Fed and Empire State Manufacturing Surveys already captures this impact. The return of producer price deflation in China guarantees that weak US import prices will add to domestic deflationary pressures (Chart I-5 third panel). The recent strength in the dollar will only amplify imported deflation (Chart I-5, bottom panel). A deflationary shock is an immediate problem for businesses and creates a huge risk for household incomes because it exacerbates the already violent contraction in aggregate demand. In the coming months, the weakest nominal GDP growth since the Great Depression will depress profits. BCA Research’s US Equity Strategy team expects S&P 500 operating earnings per share to drop from $162 in 2019 to no further than $104 in 2020.1 The profits of small businesses will suffer even more. Cash flow shortfalls will also cause corporate defaults to spike because many firms will not be able to service their debt (Chart I-6). Currently, 86% of the job losses since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis are temporary. However, if corporate bankruptcies spike too fast and too high, then these job losses will become permanent and household incomes will not recover quickly. A sharp but brief recession would turn into a long depression. Chart I-6Defaults Can Only Rise …But The Liquidity Crisis Will Not Morph Into A Solvency Crisis… In response to the aggregate demand shock caused by COVID-19, global central banks are supporting lending. These policies are an essential ingredient to flatten the default curve and minimize the permanent hit to employment and household income. The US Fed is acting as the central banker to the world. The US Fed is acting as the central banker to the world. Its new quantitative easing program has already added $1.36 trillion in excess reserves this quarter. Moreover, the Fed’s decision to loosen supplementary liquidity ratios and capital adequacy ratios allows the interbank and offshore markets to normalize. Meanwhile, the Fed’s swap lines with global central banks have surged by $432 billion since the crisis began. Its FIMA facility also permits central banks to pledge Treasurys as collateral to receive US dollars. These two programs let global central banks provide dollar funding to the private sector outside the US. Chart I-7Easing Liquidity Stress The Fed is also supporting the credit market directly. The $250 billion Secondary Market Corporate Facility, the $500 billion Primary Market Corporate Facility and the $600 billion Main Street New Loan and Expanded Loan Facilities, all mean that firms with a credit rating above Baa or a debt-to-EBITDA ratio below 4x can still get funding. Together with the $100 billion Term-Asset-backed Securities Loan Facility, these measures will prevent a liquidity crisis from morphing into a solvency crisis in which healthier borrowers cannot roll over their debt. Such a crisis would magnify the inevitable increase in defaults manyfold. The market is already reflecting the impact of the Fed’s programs. Corporate spreads for credit tiers affected by the Fed’s support are narrowing (Chart I-7). Spreads reflective of liquidity conditions, such as the FRA-OIS gap, the Commercial paper-OIS spread and cross-currency basis-swap spreads, have also begun to normalize. The narrowing of bank CDS spreads demonstrates that unlike the GFC, the current crisis does not threaten the viability of major commercial banks (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Other central banks are doing their share. The Bank of Canada is buying provincial debt to ensure that the authorities directly tasked with managing the pandemic have the ability to do so. The European Central Bank has enacted a QE program of at least EUR1.1 trillion and enlarged the TLTRO facility while decreasing its interest rate, which cheapens the cost of financing for commercial banks. Moreover, the ECB has also eased liquidity and capital adequacy ratios for commercial banks. Last week, it announced that it would also accept junk bonds as collateral, as long as these bonds were rated as investment grade prior to April 7, 2020. …And Governments Are Pulling Levers… Chart I-8Record Fiscal Easing Governments, too, are ensuring that private-sector default rates do not spike uncontrollably and doom the economy to a repeat of the 1930s. Policymakers in the G-10 and China have announced larger stimulus packages than the programs implemented in the wake of the GFC (Chart I-8). The US’s programs already total $2.89 trillion or 13% of 2020 GDP. Germany is abandoning fiscal discipline and has declared stimulus measures totaling 12% of GDP. Italy’s package is more modest at 3% of GDP. Even powerhouse China is not taking chances. In addition to a larger fiscal package than in 2008, the reserve requirement ratio stands at 9.5%, the lowest level in 13 years, and the People’s Bank of China cut the rate of interest on excess reserves by 37 basis points to 0.35% (Chart I-9). The last cut to the IOER was in November 2008 and was of 27 basis points. This interest rate easing preceded a CNY4 trillion increase in the stock of credit, which played a major role in the global recovery that began in 2009. Hence, the recent IOER reduction, in light of the decline in loan prime rates and MLF rates, suggests that China is getting ready to boost its economy by as much as in 2008. Chart I-9China Is Pressing On The Gas Pedal Among the advanced economies, loan guarantees supplement growing deficits. So far, this protection totals at least $1.3 trillion. While guarantees do not directly boost the income and spending of the private sector, they address the risk of an uncontrolled spike in defaults. Therefore, they minimize the odds that rocketing temporary layoffs will morph into permanent unemployment. Section II, written by BCA’s Jonathan Laberge, addresses the question of fiscal policy and whether the packages announced so far are large enough to fill the hole created by COVID-19. While a deep recession is unavoidable, governments will provide more stimulus if activity does not soon stabilize. … While Banks And Household Balance Sheets Compare Favorably To 2008 Banks and the household sector, the largest agent in the private sector, entered 2020 on stronger footing than prior to the GFC. Otherwise, all the fiscal and monetary easing in the world would do little to support the global economy. If banks were as weak as when they entered the GFC, then monetary stimulus would have remained trapped in the banking system in the form of excess reserves. Both in the US and in the euro area, banks now possess higher capital adequacy ratios than in 2008 (Chart I-10). Moreover, as BCA Research’s US Investment Strategy service has demonstrated, the large cash holdings and low loan-to-deposit ratio of the US banking system reinforces its strength (Chart I-11).2 Thus, banks are unlikely to tighten credit standards for as long as they did after the GFC. Broad money expansion should outpace the post-GFC experience, as the surge in US M2 growth to a post-war record of 16% indicates. Chart I-10Banks Have More Capital Than In 2008… Chart I-11...And Have More Cash And Secure Funding Consumers are also in better shape than in 2008. Last December, US household debt stood at 99.7% of disposable income compared with a peak of 136% in 2008. More importantly, financial obligations represented only 15.1% of disposable income, a near-record low. Limited financial obligations suggest that consumer bankruptcies should remain manageable as long as governments help households weather the current period of temporary unemployment (Chart I-12). Meanwhile, household indebtedness in Spain and Ireland has collapsed from 137% to 94% and from 183% to 85% of disposable income, respectively. Italy, despite its structural economic weakness, always sported a low private-sector debt load. A precautionary rise in the savings rate is unavoidable, but it will not match the magnitude of the increase that followed the GFC. The economy will recover quicker than it did following the GFC. The deep recession engulfing the world should not evolve into a prolonged depression because banks and household balance sheets are in a better state than in 2008. While the recovery will be chaotic, the velocity of money will not remain as depressed for as long as it stayed after 2008, which will allow nominal GDP to recover faster than after the GFC. Banks and households will be quicker to lend and borrow from each other than they were after the GFC. Consequently, the collapse in the consumption of durable goods (e.g. cars) has created pent-up demand, but not a permanent downshift in the demand curve (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Robust Household Finances Chart I-13Households' Pent-Up Demand Bottom Line: The global economy is on track to suffer its worst contraction since the 1930s. However, the combination of aggressive monetary and fiscal stimulus will prevent a rising wave of defaults from swelling to a crippling tsunami that permanently curtails household income. Given that banks and households have stronger balance sheets than in 2008, when governments ease lockdowns, the economy will recover quicker than it did following the GFC. The evolution of any second wave of infection is the crucial risk to this view. The IMF’s forecast indicates that growth will suffer substantial downside relative to its baseline scenario if the second wave is strong and forces renewed lockdowns. In this scenario, the current package of stimulus must be augmented to avoid a depression-like outcome. A big problem for forecasters, is that we do not have a good sense of how the second wave of infections will evolve. Moreover, the ability to test the population and engage in contact tracing will determine how aggressive lockdowns will be. Therefore, we currently have very little visibility to handicap the odds of each path. Investment Implications Low inflation for the next 18 months will allow monetary conditions to stay extremely accommodative. Growth will recover in the second half of 2020, so the window to own risk assets remains fully open as long as we can avoid a second wave of complete lockdowns. The Dollar’s Last Hurrah The US dollar has become dangerously expensive. According to a simple model, the dollar trades at a premium to its purchasing-parity equilibrium against major currencies, which is comparable to 1985 or 2002 when it attained its most recent cyclical tops (Chart I-14). The dollar may not trade as richly against our Behavioral Effective Exchange Rate model, but this fair value estimate has rolled over (Chart I-14, bottom panel). A peak in global policy uncertainty may be the key to timing the start of the dollar’s decline. Policy will prompt downside risk created by the dollar’s overvaluation. The US twin deficit, which is the sum of the fiscal and current account deficits, is set to explode because Washington will expand the fiscal gap by 15~20% of GDP while the private sector will not increase its savings rate at the same pace. If US real interest rates are high and rising, then foreign investors will snap up US liabilities and finance the twin deficit. If real rates are low and falling, then foreigners will demand a much cheapened dollar (which would embed higher long-term expected returns) to buy US liabilities (Chart I-15). Chart I-14The Dollar Is Pricey Chart I-15Bulging Twin Deficits Are A Worry Real interest rates probably will not climb, hence the twin deficit will become an insurmountable burden for the dollar. The Fed has not hit its symmetric 2% inflation target since the GFC and will not do so in the next one to two years. As a result, the Fed will not lift nominal interest rates until inflation expectations, currently at 1.14%, return to the 2.3% to 2.5% zone consistent with investors believing that the Fed is achieving its mandate. Thus, real interest rates will decline, which will drag down the USD. Relative money supply trends also point to a weaker dollar in the coming 12 months (Chart I-16). The Fed is easing policy more aggressively than other central banks and US banks are better capitalized than European or Japanese ones. Therefore, US money supply growth should continue to outpace foreign money supply. The inevitable slippage of dollars out of the US economy, especially if the current account deficit widens, will boost the supply of dollars globally relative to other currencies. Without any real interest rate advantage, the USD will lose value against other currencies. China’s policy easing is also negative for the dollar. China’s large-scale stimulus will allow the global industrial cycle to recover smartly in the second half of 2020, especially if the increase in pent-up demand fuels realized demand in the fall. The US economy’s closed nature and low exposure to both trade and manufacturing will weigh on US internal rates of return relative to the rest of the world, and invite outflows (Chart I-17). This selling will accentuate downward pressure created by the aforementioned balance of payments and policy dynamics. Chart I-16Money Supply Trends Will Hurt The Dollar Chart I-17The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The dollar is also vulnerable from a technical perspective. A record share of currencies is more than one-standard deviation oversold against the USD (Chart I-18). According to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), outflows from EM economies have already eclipsed their 2008 records, and the underperformance of DM assets suggests that portfolio managers have aggressively abandoned non-USD assets. These developments imply that investors who wanted to move money back into the US have already done so. Chart I-18The Dollar Is Becoming Overbought Chart I-19The Dollar Is A Momentum Currency Investors should move funds out of the dollar, but not aggressively. The outlook for the dollar in the next year or two is poor, but the USD’s most important tailwind is intact: the global economy will recover, but for the time being, it remains in freefall. Moreover, among the G-10 currencies, the dollar responds most positively to the momentum factor (Chart I-19), which remains another tailwind. The greenback will remain volatile in the coming weeks. EM currencies offer a particularly tricky dilemma. They have cheapened to levels where historically they offer very compelling long-term returns (Chart I-20). However, EM firms have large amounts of dollar-denominated debt. The fall in EM FX and collapse in domestic cash flows will likely cause some large-scale bankruptcies. If a large, famous EM company defaults, then the headline risk would probably trigger a broad-based selling of EM currencies. For now, our Emerging Market Strategy service recommends that, within the EM FX space, investors favor the currencies with the lowest funding needs, such as the RUB, KRW and THB.3 Chart I-20EM FX Is Decisively Cheap For tactical investors, a peak in global policy uncertainty may be the key to timing the start of the dollar’s decline (Chart I-21). This implies that if a second wave of infections force severe lockdowns, the dollar rally may not be done. Chart I-21Uncertainty Must Recede For The Dollar To Weaken Fixed Income Government bonds have not yet depreciated and the exact timing of a price decline remains uncertain. However, Treasurys and Bunds offer an increasingly poor cyclical risk-reward ratio. Bond valuations continue to deteriorate. Our time-tested BCA Bond Valuation model shows that G-10 bonds, in general, and US Treasurys, in particular, are at their most expensive levels since December 2008 and March 1985, two periods that preceded major increases in yields (Chart I-22). Buy inflation-protected securities at the expense of nominal bonds. Liquidity conditions also represent a threat for safe-haven bonds. The wave of liquidity unleashed by global central banks is meeting record fiscal thrust. Thus, not only is the supply of government bonds increasing, but a larger proportion of the money injected by central banks will actually make its way into the real economy than after 2008. Record-low yields are vulnerable because the increase in the global money supply should prevent nominal GDP growth from slumping permanently as in the 1930s and after the GFC. Additionally, the sharp escalation in liquid assets on the balance sheets of commercial banks also creates an additional risk for bond prices (Chart I-23). Chart I-22Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Chart I-23Liquidity Injections Point To Higher Yields QE also threatens government fixed income. After the GFC, real interest rates fell because investors understood that US short rates would remain at zero for a long time. Yet, 10-year Treasury yields rose sharply in 2009 as inflation breakevens increased more than the decline in TIPS yields. This pattern repeated itself following each QE wave (Chart I-24). In essence, if the Fed provides enough liquidity to allow markets to function well, then the chance of cyclical deflation decreases, which warrants higher inflation expectations. A lower dollar will be fundamental to the rise in inflation breakeven and yields. A soft dollar will confirm that the Fed is providing enough liquidity to satiate dollar demand and it will favor risk-taking around the world. Moreover, it will boost commodity prices and help realize inflation increases down the line. Chart I-24QE Lifts Breakevens And Yields Technical considerations also point to the end of the bond bull market, at least for the next 12 to 18 months. Investors remain bullish toward bonds, which is a contrarian signal. Our Composite Momentum Indicator has reached levels last achieved at the end of 2008, which suggested at that time that bond-buying was long in the tooth. Chart I-25Inflation Will Drive US/German Spreads In this context, investors with a cyclical investment horizon should consider bringing duration below benchmark. In the short term, this position still carries significant risks because the outlook for yields depends on the dollar. Another dollar spike caused by renewed lockdowns would also pin yields near current levels for longer. A lower-risk version of this bet would be to buy inflation-protected securities at the expense of nominal bonds, a position recommended by our US Bond Strategy service.4 Investors should be careful when betting that US yields will further converge toward German ones. The 10-year yield spread between US Treasurys and German Bunds has quickly narrowed, falling by 170 basis points from a high of 279 basis points in November 2018. Despite this sharp contraction, the spread remains elevated by historical standards. So far, the declining yield gap reflects the fall in policy rates in the US relative to Europe. Given that both the Fed and the ECB are at the lower bounds of their policy rates, short-rate differentials are unlikely to compress further. Instead, inflation differentials between the US and Europe must decline (Chart I-25). The inflation gap between the US and Europe probably will not narrow significantly this year. The IMF forecasts that Europe’s economy will underperform the US. Therefore, slack in Europe will expand faster than in the US. Moreover, monetary and fiscal support in the US is more aggressive than in Europe. Consequently, a weaker dollar, which will increase US inflation expectations relative to Europe, will put upward pressure on the US/German 10-year spread. However, if the European fiscal policy response starts to match the size of the US stimulus, then the spread between the US and Germany would narrow further. Ample liquidity also continues to underpin equity prices. Finally, for credit investors, our US Bond Strategy service recommends buying securities with abnormally large spreads and which the various Fed programs target. These include agency CMBS, consumer ABS, municipal bonds, and corporates rated Ba and above.5 Equities Chart I-26Investors Are Not Exuberant About Stocks Despite some short-term risks, we continue to favor equities on a 12- to 18-month investment horizon in an environment where a second wave of lockdowns can be avoided. Stock valuations have deteriorated, but they remain broadly attractive (see page 2 of Section III). While multiples are not particularly cheap, the equity risk premium remains very high. Alternatively, the expected growth rate of long-term earnings embedded in stock prices continues to hover at the bottom of its post-war distribution (Chart I-26). In other words, stocks are attractive because bond yields are low. Ample liquidity also continues to underpin equity prices. Our US Financial Liquidity Index points to rising S&P 500 returns in the coming months (Chart I-27). The Fed’s surging liquidity injections, which foreign central banks are mimicking, will only accentuate this backdrop. Moreover, in times of crisis, inflation expectations correlate positively with stock prices because “bad deflation” represents an existential threat to profitability.6 QE lifts inflation expectations, therefore, its bearish impact on bond prices should not translate into a fall in stock prices. Chart I-27Ample Liquidity For The S&P 500 Chart I-28Valuation And Monetary Condition Offset COVID-19 The combined valuation and liquidity backdrop are accommodative enough for stocks to persevere higher, despite the immense economic shock generated by COVID-19. The readings of our BCA Valuation and Monetary Indicator are even more accommodative for stocks than they were in Q1 2009, which marked the beginning of a 340% bull market (Chart I-28). Moreover, trend growth may have been less negatively affected by COVID-19 than it was by the GFC. Consequently, our US Equity Strategy service uses the historical pattern of profit rebounds subsequent to recessions to anticipate 2021 S&P 500 earnings per share of $162.1 Technicals remain supportive for stocks on a cyclical basis. Sentiment and momentum continue to be depressed, which could explain the resilience of stocks. Indeed, our Composite Momentum Indicator based on both the 13-week rate of change of the S&P 500 and traders’ sentiment lingers at the bottom of its historical distribution (Chart I-29). Moreover, the percentage of stocks above their 30-week moving average or at 52-week highs suggests that the average stock is still oversold (Chart I-30). Chart I-29Cyclical Momentum Is Not A Risk Yet Chart I-30The Median Stock Remains Oversold The problem for equity indices is that some sectors, such as tech, are very overbought on a near-term basis, which could invite profit-taking among the names that account for a disproportionate share of the index. If these sectors correct meaningfully, then the whole index would fall even if the median stocks barely vacillate. Nonetheless, all the forces listed in Section I suggest that the correction will not develop into a new down leg for the market. Energy stocks offer an attractive opportunity for investors, a view shared by our US Equity Strategy colleagues.1 The energy sector trades at its largest discount to the broad market on record and a weaker dollar normally lifts its relative performance (Chart I-31). Moreover, energy stocks have modestly outperformed the market since its March 23 bottom, despite the abyss into which oil prices tumbled. A pair trade is also available to investors. Healthcare and tech stocks have rallied in parabolic fashion relative to energy stocks. Oil may have capitulated on April 20 when the WTI May contract hit $-40/bbl. Storage capacity is essentially maxed out, but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is set to restrict production from 12.3 million b/d to 8.5 million b/d, which will contribute generously to the 10 million bpd cut agreed by OPEC+. Countries such as Canada are also curtailing output, a move repeated among many oil producers. US shale firms, which have become marginal producers of oil, are also paring down their production. Shale producers are not done cutting, judging by both the decline in horizontal rig counts and WTI trading below most marginal costs (Chart I-32). The oil market will move away from its surplus position when the global economy restarts. Chart I-31An Opportunity In Energy Chart I-32Shale Production Will Fall Much Further The slope of the oil curve confirms that the outlook for energy stocks is improving. On April 20, Brent and WTI hit their deepest contango on record, a development accentuated by the reflexive relationship between major oil ETFs and the price of the commodity itself. The structure of those ETFs was amended on April 21st, allowing a break in this reflexive relationship. The oil curve is again steepening, which after such a large contango often results in higher crude prices (Chart I-33). Meanwhile, net earnings revisions for the energy sector have become very depressed. Relative to the broad market, revisions are also weak but turning up. In this context, rising oil prices can easily lift energy stocks relative to the broad market. Chart I-33A Decreasing Contango Would Boost Oil Stocks Chart I-34Parabolic Moves Are Rarely Durable A pair trade is also available to investors. Healthcare and tech stocks have rallied in parabolic fashion relative to energy stocks (Chart I-34). We constructed a global sector ranking based on the bottom-up valuation scores from BCA Research’s Equity Trading Strategy service. Based on this metric, energy stocks are attractively valued, while tech and healthcare are not (Chart I-35). A rebound in oil prices should prompt some portfolio rebalancing in favor of the energy sector. Chart I-35A Bottom-Up Ranking For Sectors Valuations Finally, our US Equity Sector Strategy service also recommends investors overweight consumer discretionary stocks. This sector will benefit because robust household balance sheets will allow consumers to take advantage of low interest rates when the global economy recovers.7 Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 30, 2020 Next Report: May 28, 2020 II. The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession. The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. Even when narrowly-defined, the announced (or likely) fiscal response of the US, China, and Germany is quite large and appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. This is not the case, however, in other euro area economies (France, Italy, and Spain), or in emerging markets. Our analysis also suggests that the global fiscal response will need to increase if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. The global economic expansion that began in 2009 has come to an abrupt end due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggressive containment measures necessary to control the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse in health care systems around the world have caused a large and sudden stop in global economic activity, which has prompted unprecedented responses from governments around the world. In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession (characterized by a very prolonged return to trend growth). The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. But for now, we (tentatively) conclude that the fiscal response appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. However, there are two important caveats. First, while Germany has provided among the strongest fiscal responses globally, measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Second, the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year – more will have to be done. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. In this regard, the gradual re-opening of several US states by early-May, while positive for economic activity in the short-run, is a non-trivial risk to the US and global economic outlooks over the coming 6-12 months. This risk must be closely watched by investors. The Global Fiscal Response: Comparing Across Countries And Across Measures The flurry of policy announcements from national governments over the past six weeks has led to a great degree of confusion about the size and disposition of the global COVID-19 fiscal response. Our analysis is based heavily on the IMF’s tracking of these measures, albeit with a few adjustments. We also rely on analysis from Bruegel, a prominent European macroeconomic think-tank, as well as our own Geopolitical Strategy team and a variety of news reports. Chart II-1 presents the IMF’s estimate of the total fiscal response to the crisis across major countries, as of April 23rd, broken down into “above-the-line” and “below-the-line” measures. Above-the-line measures are those that directly impact government budget balances (direct fiscal spending and revenue measures, usually tax deferrals), whereas below-the-line measures typically involve balance sheet measures to backstop businesses through capital injections and loan guarantees. Chart II-1The Global Fiscal Response Is Huge When Including All Measures Chart II-1 makes it clear that the fiscal response of advanced economies is enormous when including both above- and below-the-line measures. By this metric, the response of most developed economies is on the order of 10% of GDP, and well above 30% in the case of Italy and Germany. However, using the sum of above- and below-the-line measures to gauge the fiscal response of any country may not be the ideal approach, given that below-the-line measures are contingent either on the triggering of certain conditions or on the provision of credit to households and firms from the financial system. Below-the-line measures also likely increase the liability position of the private sector, thus raising the odds of negative second-round effects. Instead, Chart II-2 compares the countries shown in Chart 1 based only on the IMF’s estimate of above-the-line measures, and with a 4% downward adjustment to Japan’s reported spending to account for previously announced measures.8 The chart shows that countries fall into roughly three categories in terms of the magnitude of their above-the-line response: in excess of 4% of GDP (Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, and Germany), 2-3% (the UK, Brazil, and China), and sub-2% (all other countries shown in the chart, including Spain, Italy, and France). Chart II-2The Picture Changes When Excluding Below-The-Line Measures Analysis by Bruegel provides somewhat different estimates of the global COVID-19 fiscal response for select European countries as well as the US (Table II-1). Bruegel breaks down discretionary fiscal measures that have been announced into three categories: those involving an immediate fiscal impulse (new spending and foregone revenues), those related to deferred payments, and other liquidity provisions and guarantees. Bruegel distinguishes between the first and second categories because of their differing impact on government budget balances. Deferrals improve the liquidity positions of individuals and companies but do not cancel their obligations, meaning that they result only in a temporary deterioration in budget balances. Table II-1The Type Of Fiscal Response Varies Significantly Across Countries Table II-1 highlights that Bruegel’s estimates of the sum of above- and below-the-line measures are similar to the IMF’s estimates for the US, the UK, and Spain, but are smaller for Italy and larger for France and Germany (particularly the latter). These differences underscore the extreme uncertainty facing investors, who have to contend not only with varying estimates of the magnitude of government policies but also a torrent of news concerning the evolution of the pandemic itself. Chart II-3 presents our best current estimate of the above-the-line fiscal response of several countries (the measure we deem to be most likely to result in an immediate fiscal impulse), by excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals to the best of our ability.9 Chart II-3 is based on a combination of data from the IMF, Bruegel analysis, and BCA estimates and news analysis. Chart II-3When Narrowly Defined, Several Countries Are Responding Forcefully, But Many Countries Are Not Overall, investors can draw the following conclusions from Charts II-1 – II-3 and Table II-1: When measured as the total of above- and below-the-line measures, nearly all large developed market countries have responded with sizeable measures. Emerging market economies are the clear laggards. Excluding below-the-line measures and using our approach, Australia, the US, China, Germany, Japan, and Canada appear to be spending the most relative to the size of their economies. While Japan’s “headline” fiscal number was inflated by including previously-announced spending, it is still decently-sized after adjustment. Outside of Germany, the rest of Europe appears to be providing a middling or poor above-the-line fiscal response. The UK appears to be providing between 4-5% of GDP as a fiscal impulse, whereas the fiscal response in Italy, Spain, and France looks more like that of emerging markets than of advanced economies. Measuring The Stimulus Against The Shock Despite the substantial amount of new information over the past six weeks concerning the evolution of the pandemic and the attendant policy response, it remains extremely difficult to judge what the balance between shock and stimulus will be and what that means for the profile of growth. Nonetheless, below we present a framework that investors can use to approach the question, and that can be updated as new information emerges concerning the impact of the shutdowns and the extent of the response. Our approach involves analyzing four specific questions: What is the size of the initial shock? What are the likely second-round effects on growth? What is the likely multiplier on fiscal spending? Will the composition of fiscal spending alter its effectiveness? The Size Of The Initial Shock Chart II-4 presents the OECD’s estimates of the initial impact of partial or complete shutdowns on economic activity in several countries. The OECD first used a sectoral approach to estimating the impact on activity while lockdowns are in effect, assuming a 100% shutdown for manufacturing of transportation equipment and other personal services, a 50% decline in activity for construction and professional services, and a 75% decline for retail trade, wholesale trade, hotels, restaurants, and air travel. Chart II-4 illustrates the total impact of this approach for key developed and emerging economies. Chart II-4Annual GDP Will Be 1.5%-2.5% Lower For Each Month Lockdowns Are In Effect The OECD’s approach provides a credible estimate of the impact of aggressive containment policies, and implies that annual real GDP is likely to be 1.5-2.5% lower for major countries for each month that lockdown policies are in effect. This implies that output in major economies is likely to fall 3.5% - 6% for the year from the initial shock alone, assuming an aggressive 10-week lockdown followed by a complete return to normal. Estimating Potential Second Round Effects Chart II-5 presents projections from the Bank for International Settlements on the spillover and spillback potential of a 5% initial shock to the level of global GDP from the COVID-19 pandemic (equivalent to a 20% impact on an annualized basis). Chart II-5Additional Lockdown Events Are A Greater Risk Than First Wave After-Effects The chart shows that the cumulative impact of the initial shock rises to 7-8% by the end of this year for the US, euro area, and emerging markets, and 6% for other advanced economies. These estimates account for both domestic second round effects of the initial shock, as well as the reverberating impact of the shock on global trade. Chart II-5 also shows the devastating effect that a second wave of COVID-19 emerging in the second half of the year would have after including spillover and spillback effects, assuming that only partial lockdowns would be required. In this scenario, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region, suggesting that investors should be more concerned about the possibility of additional lockdown events than they should be about the after-effects of the first wave of infections (more on this below). Will Fiscal Multipliers Be High Or Low? When examining the academic literature on fiscal multipliers, the first impression is that multipliers are likely to be extremely large in the current environment. Tables II-2 and II-3 present a range of academic multiplier estimates aggregated by the IMF, categorized by the stage of the business cycle and whether the zero lower bound is in effect. Table II-2Fiscal Multipliers Are Much Larger During Recessions Than Expansions Table II-3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound The tables tell a clear story: multipliers are typically meaningfully larger during recessions than during expansions, and extremely large when the zero lower bound (ZLB) is in effect. However, there are at least two reasons to expect that the fiscal multiplier during this crisis will not be as large as Tables II-2 and II-3 suggest. First, it is obviously the case that the multiplier will be low while full or even partial lockdowns are in effect, as consumers will not have the ability to fully act in response to stimulative measures. This will be partially offset by a burst of spending once lockdowns are removed, but the empirical multiplier estimates during recessions shown in Table II-2 have not been measured during a period when constraints to spending have been in effect, and we suspect that this will have at least somewhat of a dampening effect on the efficacy of fiscal spending relative to previous recessions (even once regulations concerning store closures are removed). Second, Table II-3 likely overestimates the multiplier at the ZLB. These estimates have been based on models rather than empirical analysis, and appear to be in reference to the prevention of large subsequent declines in output following an initial shock. The modeled finding of a large multiplier at the ZLB occurs because increased deficit spending will not lead to higher policy rates in a scenario where the neutral rate has fallen below zero. But it seems difficult to believe that the fiscal multiplier during ZLB episodes, defined as the impact of fiscal spending on the path of output relative to the initial shock (not relative to a counterfactual additional shock), is larger than the highest empirical estimates of the multiplier during recessions. The only circumstance in which we can envision this being the case is an environment where long-term bond yields are capped and remain at zero, alongside short-term interest rates, as the economy improves. The IMF has provided a simple rule of thumb approach to estimating the fiscal multiplier for a given country. The IMF’s approach involves first estimating the multiplier under normal circumstances based on a series of key structural characteristics that have been shown to influence the economy’s response to fiscal shocks. Then, the “normal” multiplier is adjusted higher or lower depending on the stage of the business cycle, and whether monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB. For the US, the IMF’s approach suggests that a multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 is reasonable, assuming the highest cyclical adjustment but no ZLB adjustment (see Box II-1 for a description of the calculation). Given the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we are inclined to use the low end of this range (1.1) as a conservative assumption when judging whether fiscal responses to the crisis are sufficient. For investors, this means that governments should be aiming, at a minimum, for fiscal packages that are roughly 90% of the size of the expected shock of their economies, using our US fiscal multiplier assumption as a guide. Box II-1 The “Bucket” Approach To Estimating Fiscal Multipliers The IMF “bucket” approach to estimating fiscal multiplier involves determining the multiplier that is likely to apply to a given country during “normal” circumstances, based on a set of structural characteristics associated with larger multipliers. This “normal” multiplier is then adjusted based on the following formula: M = MNT * (1+Cycle) * (1+Mon) Where M is the final multiplier estimate, MNT is the “normal times” multiplier derived from structural characteristics, Cycle is the cyclical factor ranging from −0.4 to +0.6, and Mon is the monetary policy stance factor ranging from 0 to 0.3. The Cycle factor is higher the more a country’s output gap is negative, and the Mon factor is higher the closer the economy is to the zero lower bound. Table II-B1 applies the IMF’s approach to the US, using the same structural score as the IMF presented in the note that described the approach. The table highlights that the approach suggests a US fiscal multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 given the maximum cycle adjustment proscribed by the rule, which we feel is reasonable given the unprecedented rise in US unemployment. We make no adjustment to the range for the zero lower bound. Table II-B1A Multiplier Estimate Of 1.1 – 1.6 Seems Reasonable For The US The Composition Of The Response: Helping Or Hurting? The last of our four questions deals with the issue of composition and whether the form of a country’s fiscal response is likely to alter its effectiveness. We implicitly addressed the first element of composition, whether measures are above-the-line or below-the-line, by comparing Charts II-1 - II-3 on pages 28-31. Our view is that above-the-line measures are far more important than below-the-line measures, as the former provides direct income and liquidity support. Below-the-line measures are also important, as they are likely to help reduce business failure and household bankruptcies. The fiscal multiplier on these measures has to be above zero, but it is likely to be much lower than that of an above-the-line response. The second element of composition concerns the appropriate distribution of aid among households, businesses, and local governments. On this particular question, it remains extremely challenging to analyze the issue on a global basis, owing to a frequent lack of an explicit breakdown of fiscal measures by recipient. Chart II-6Much Of The US Fiscal Response Is Going To Households And Small Businesses For now, we limit our distributional analysis to the US, and hope to expand our approach to other countries in future research. Chart II-6 presents a breakdown of the US fiscal response by recipient, which informs the following observations. Households: Chart II-6 highlights that US households will receive approximately $600 billion as part of the CARES Act, roughly half of which will occur through direct payments (i.e. “stimulus checks”) and another 40% from expanded unemployment benefits. In cases where the federal household response has been criticized by members of the public as inadequate, it has often been compared to income support programs of other countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) is a good example of a program that seems, at first blush, to be superior: it provides $2,000 CAD in direct payments to individuals for a 4 week period, for up to 16 weeks (i.e. a maximum of $8,000 CAD), which seems better than a $1,200 USD stimulus check. However, Table II-4 highlights that this comparison is mostly spurious. First, the CERB is not universal, in that it is only available to those who have stopped or will stop working due to COVID-19. At a projected cost of $35 billion CAD, the CERB program represents 1.5% of Canadian GDP. By comparison, $600 billion USD in overall household support represents 2.75% of US GDP; this number drops to 1.75% when only considering support to those who have lost their jobs, but this is still higher as a share of the economy than in Canada. Moreover, there is little question that Congress is prepared to pass more stimulus for additional weeks of required assistance. The discrepancy between the perception and reality of US household sector support appears to be rooted in the speed of payments. Speed is the one area where Canada’s household sector response appears to have legitimately outperformed the US; CERB payments are received by applicants within three business days for those registered for electronic payment, and in some cases they are received the following day. By contrast, it has taken some time for US States to start paying out the additional $600 USD per week in expanded unemployment benefits, but as of the middle of last week nearly all states had started making these payments. Table II-4US Household Relief Is Just As Generous As Seemingly Better Programs Firms: On April 16th the Small Business Administration announced that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) had expended its initial budget of $350 billion. While additional funds of $320 billion have subsequently been approved (plus $60 billion in small business emergency loans and grants), the run on PPP funds was, to some investors, an implicit sign that the CARES Act was inadequately structured. However, the fact that the initial funds ran out in mid-April simply reflects the reality that social distancing measures had been in place for 3-4 weeks by the time that the program began taking applications. Table II-5 highlights that $350 billion was large enough to replace nearly 90% of lost small business income for one month, assuming that overall small business revenue has fallen by 50% and that small businesses account for 44% of total GDP. The Table also shows that a combined total of $730 billion is enough to replace almost 80% of lost small business income for 10 weeks, given these assumptions. With loan forgiveness at least partially tied to small businesses retaining employees on payroll for an 8-week period, the PPP is also essentially an indirect form of household income support. Table II-5Help For Small Businesses Will Replace A Significant Amount Of Lost Income Chart II-7Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time State & Local Governments: The magnitude of support for state & local (S&L) governments appears to be the least-well designed element of the US fiscal response. The CARES Act provides for $170 billion in support to S&L, which at first blush seems large as it is approximately 25% of S&L current receipts in Q4 2019 (i.e. it stands to cover a 25% loss in revenue for one quarter). However, this does not account for the significant reported increase in S&L costs to combat the pandemic, nor does it provide S&L governments with any revenue certainty beyond June 30th when most of the assistance from CARES must be spent. Unlike households or firms, who also face significant uncertainty, nearly all US states are subject to balanced budget requirements, which prevent them from spending more than they collect in revenue. When faced even with projected revenue losses in the second half of this year and into 2021, states are likely to aggressively and immediately cut costs in order to avoid budgetary shortfalls. Chart II-7 highlights that S&L austerity was a significant element of the persistent drag on real GDP growth from overall government expenditure and investment in the first 3-4 years of the post-GFC economic expansion. A repeat of this episode would significantly raise the odds of an “L-type” recession (and thus should certainly be avoided). This is why Congress is moving to pass larger state and local aid. Our Geopolitical Strategy team argues that neither President Trump nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will prevent the additional financial assistance that US states will require, despite their rhetoric about states going bankrupt.10 A near-term, temporary standoff may occur, but Washington will almost certainly act to provide at least additional short-term funding if state employment starts to fall due to budget pressure. So while we recognize that the state & local component of the US fiscal response is currently lacking, it does not seem likely to represent a serious threat to an eventual economic recovery in the US. Putting It All Together: Will It Be Enough? Chart II-8 reproduces Chart II-3 with an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.1, and with shaded regions denoting the likely initial and total impact on GDP from aggressive containment measures (based on the OECD and BIS’ estimates). Based on our analysis of the US fiscal response, we make no adjustments for the composition of the measures beyond defining the fiscal response on a narrow basis (i.e. excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals). The chart highlights that the narrowly-defined fiscal response of three key economies driving global demand, the US, China, and Germany, is either at the upper end or above the total impact range. Thus, for now, we tentatively conclude that the fiscal response that has or will happen appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event, especially since Chart II-8 explicitly excludes below-the-line measures. However, there are two important caveats to this conclusion. First, Chart II-8 makes it clear that measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Italy and France have provided a substantial below-the-line response, but it is far from clear that a debt-based response or one that only temporarily improves access to cash for households and businesses will be enough to prevent a prolonged fallout from the sudden stop in economic activity and income. Chart II-8Several Important Countries Seem To Be Doing Enough, But More Is Needed In Europe Ex-Germany Second, our analysis suggests that the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year or if these measures remain in place at half-strength for many months. This underscores how sensitive the adequacy of announced fiscal measures are to the amount of time economies remain under full or partial lockdown. As such, it is crucial for investors to have some sense of when advanced economies may be able to sustainably end aggressive containment measures. When Can The Lockdowns Sustainably End? Several countries and US states have already announced some reductions in their restrictions, but the question of how comprehensive these measures can be without risking a second period of prolonged stay-at-home orders looms large. Table II-6 presents two different methods of estimating sustainable lockdown end dates for several advanced economies. First, we use the “70-day rule” that appears to have succeeded in ending the outbreak in Wuhan, calculated from the first day that either school or work closures took effect in each country.11 Second, using a linear trend from the peak 5-day moving average of confirmed cases and fatalities, we calculate when confirmed cases and fatalities may reach zero. Table II-6By Re-Opening Soon, The US May Be Risking A Damaging Second Wave The table highlights that these methods generally prescribe a reopening date of May 31st or earlier, with a few exceptions. The UK’s confirmed case count and fatality trends are still too shallow to suggest an end of May re-opening, as is the case in Canada. In the case of Sweden, no projections can truly be made based on the 70-day rule because closures never formally occurred. But the most problematic point highlighted in Table II-6 is that US newly confirmed cases are only currently projected to fall to zero as of February 2021. Chart II-9 highlights that while new cases per capita in New York state are much higher than in the rest of the country, they are declining whereas they have yet to clearly peak elsewhere. Cross-country case comparisons can be problematic due to differences in testing, but with several US states having already begun the gradual re-opening process, this underscores that US policymakers may be allowing a dangerous rise in the odds of a secondary infection wave. Chart II-9No Clear Downtrend Yet Outside Of New York State Investment Conclusions Our core conclusion that an “L-shaped” global recession is likely to be avoided is generally bullish for equities on a 12-month horizon. However, uncertainty remains extremely elevated, and the recent rise in stock prices in the US (and globally) has been at least partially based on the expectation that lockdowns will sustainably end soon, which at least in the case of the US appears to be a premature conclusion given the current lack of large-scale virus testing capacity. As such, we are less optimistic towards risky assets tactically, and would recommend a neutral stance over a 0-3 month horizon. As noted above, our cross-country comparison of narrowly-defined fiscal measures suggested that euro area countries (excluding Germany) will likely have to do more in order to prevent a long period of below-trend growth. In the case of highly-indebted countries like Italy, this raises the additional question of whether a significantly increased debt-to-GDP ratio stemming from an aggressive fiscal impulse will cause another euro area sovereign debt crisis similar to what occurred from 2010-2014. Chart II-10Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Government debts are sustainable as long as interest rates remain below economic growth, and from this vantage point Italy should spend as much as needed in order to ensure that nominal growth remains above current long-term government bond yields. Chart II-10 highlights that, despite a widening spread versus German bunds, Italian 10-year yields are much lower today than they were during the worst of the euro area crisis, meaning that the debt sustainability hurdle is technically lower. However, we have also noted in previous reports that high-debt countries often face multiple government debt equilibria; if global investors become fearful that that high-debt countries may not be able to repay their obligations without defaulting or devaluing, then a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur via sharply higher interest rates (Chart II-11). Chart II-11Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort Chart II-12Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved For now, we view the risk of a renewed Italian debt crisis from significantly increased spending related to COVID-19 as minimal, and it is certainly lower than the status quo as the latter risks causing a sharp gap between nominal growth and bond yields like what occurred from 2010 – 2014. First, Chart II-12 highlights that Italy has succeeded in somewhat reducing its structural balance, which averaged -4% for many years prior to the euro area crisis. Assuming an adequate global response to the crisis and that economic recovery ensues, it is not clear why global bond investors would be concerned that Italian structural deficits would persistently widen. Second, the ECB is purchasing Italian government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which will help cap the level of Italian yields. Chart II-13Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Third, Chart II-13 shows what will occur to Italy’s government debt service ratio (general government net interest payments as a percent of GDP) in a scenario where Italy’s gross debt to GDP rises a full 20 percentage points and the ratio of net interest payments to debt remains unchanged. The chart shows that while debt service will rise, it will still be lower than at any point prior to 2015. So not only should Italy spend significantly more to combat the severely damaging nature of the pandemic, we would expect that Italian spreads would fall, not rise, in such an outcome. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we took a more positive stance on equities as both our valuation and monetary indicators had moved decisively into accommodative territory. While the global economy was set to weaken violently, the easing in our indicators suggested that stocks offered an adequate risk/reward ratio to take some risk. This judgment was correct. 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. Moreover, we are starting to get more clarity as to the re-opening of most Western economies because new reported cases of COVID-19 are peaking. Finally, the VIX has declined substantially but is nowhere near levels warning of an imminent risk to stocks and sentiment is still subdued. Tactically, equities are becoming somewhat overbought. However, this impression is mostly driven by the rebound in tech stocks and the strong performance posted by the healthcare sector. The median stock remains quite oversold. In this context, if the S&P 500 were to correct, we would not anticipate this correction to morph into a new down leg in the bear market that would result in new lows below the levels reached on March 23. For now, the most attractive strategy to take advantage of the supportive backdrop for stocks is to buy equities relative to bonds. In contrast to global bourses, government bonds are still massively overbought 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. Real yields will likely remain at very low levels for an extended period of time as short rates are unlikely to rise anytime soon. The yield curve is therefore slated to steepen further. The dollar has stabilized since we last published but it has not meaningfully depreciated. On the one hand, the threat of an exploding twin deficit and a Fed working hard to address the dollar shortage and keep real rates in negative territory are very bearish for the dollar. But on the other hand, free-falling global growth and spiking policy uncertainty are highly bullish for the Greenback. A stalemate was thus the most likely outcome. However, we are getting closer to a rebound in growth in Q3, which means that the balance of forces will become an increasingly potent headwind for the expensive dollar. Thus, it remains appropriate to use rallies in the dollar to offload this currency. Finally, commodities continue to linger near their lows, creating a mirror image to the dollar. They are still very oversold and sentiment has greatly deteriorated, except for gold. Thus, if as we expect, the dollar will soon begin to soften, then commodities will appreciate in tandem. The move in oil prices was particularly dramatic this month. The oil curve is in deep contango and oil producers from Saudi Arabia to the US shale patch have begun cutting output. Therefore, oil is set to rally meaningfully as the global economy re-opens for business. The large balance sheet expansion by the Fed and other global central banks will only fuel that fire. 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 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Gauging Fair Value," dated April 27, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Investment Strategy Special Report "How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 1: A 50-Year Bottom-Up Case Study," dated March 30, 2020 and US Investment Strategy Special Report "How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 2: It’s Complicated," dated April 6, 2020 available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM Domestic Bonds And Currencies," dated April 23, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Buying Opportunities & Worst-Case Scenarios," dated March 17, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Life At The Zero Bound," dated March 24, 2020 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Is The Bottom Already In?" dated April 21, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report "Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed's Anti-Virus Measures," dated April 14, 2020 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 “Bad deflation” reflects poor demand, which constrains corporate pricing power. “Good deflation” reflects productivity growth. Good deflation?? does not automatically extend to declining real profits and it is not linked with falling stock prices. The Roaring Twenties are an example of when “good deflation” resulted in a surging stock market. 7 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril," dated April 14, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 8 Skeptical economists call Japan’s largest-ever stimulus package ‘puffed-up’, Keita Nakamura, The Japan Times, April 8, 2020. 9 Please note that Chart II-3 differs somewhat from a chart that has been frequently shown by our Geopolitical Strategy service. Both charts are accurate; they simply employ different definitions of the fiscal response to the pandemic. 10 Indeed, McConnell has already walked back his comments that states should consider bankruptcy. President Trump is constrained by the election, as are Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats control the purse strings. Hence more state and local funding is forthcoming. At best for the Republicans, there may be provisions to ensure it goes to the COVID-19 crisis rather than states’ unfunded pension obligations. See Geopolitical Strategy, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update),” April 24, 2020, www.bcaresearch.com. 11 School and work closure dates have been sources from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.
Highlights Even as a net oil importer, China loses more than it gains when oil prices collapse. An oil price collapse generates a formidable deflationary force, which will further depress China’s industrial pricing power and profit growth in Q2. There are early signs that demand in some sectors is gaining traction in the first three weeks of April. A full removal of travel restrictions in late May in China should help speed up the return of domestic business activities. We maintain our view that China’s economic recovery will pick up momentum in H2, underpinning our cyclical overweight stance on Chinese risk assets. Feature The nosedive in oil futures last week was a rude awakening of the enormous and unpredictable impact the pandemic has on the global economy and financial markets. WTI futures for May 2020 delivery fell to -$40.40 per barrel on April 20, an unprecedented event. The collapse in oil prices since March will generate substantial deflationary headwinds to China’s economy in the months ahead (Chart 1). Producer prices are already in contraction. An imported deflation from low oil prices will weaken industrial pricing power even more, pushing up real rates. China’s industrial profit growth also moves in lockstep with producer prices. A deepening in PPI contraction means industrial profit growth will remain underwater, underscoring our view that the near-term outlook for Chinese stocks is yet to turn sanguine (Chart 2). Chart 1Falling Oil Prices: A Substantial Deflationary Force Chart 2Deflation Weakens Industrial Profit Growth Oil prices will likely rebound in Q3 when the global economy re-opens, oil supply cuts take hold and the US dollar peaks. Our Commodity and Energy strategist estimates that WTI spot prices will reach $38/barrel by end-2020.1 A modest recovery in oil prices alone will not be enough to lift Chinese producer prices back to positive. The substantial reflationary efforts from China’s policymakers since Q1 should start to have an impact on the real economy in H2. The exponential credit growth should effectively prop up investment and consumption growth, and reduce inventory overhang in the industrial sector. We expect industrial producer prices and profits to turn slightly positive in Q3/Q4, underpinning our constructive view on Chinese stocks in the next 6- to 12-months. Oil Price Collapse: A Bane, Not A Boon China, as a net oil importer, stands to lose more than gain in an oil price war. This is contrary to commonly held economic theory that net oil importing countries are winners from cheaper oil. In theory falling oil prices reduces import prices, improves net oil importers’ term of trade, and in turn contributes positively to their GDP growth. In reality oil prices rarely fall in isolation. A precipitous fall in oil prices is almost always triggered by a sharp decline in global demand, accompanied with a spike in the US dollar, and results in a turmoil in the global financial markets (Chart 3). Therefore, depending on where an economy is positioned in the global value chain, a net oil importer may lose even more than a net oil exporter when oil prices collapse. Chart 3Global Trade Remains Under Pressure Until Dollar Peaks Chart 4China Loses More From Falling Trade Than Gains From Falling Oil Prices At only 14% of world oil consumption, China’s demand for oil alone is not enough to support a price recovery. But as a global manufacturing powerhouse, the benefits China has gained from cheaper oil in the past cycles were often more than offset by the economic and financial shocks from an oil price collapse (Chart 4). The small positive contribution to China’s GDP growth via savings on oil import bills is further discounted by losses from China’s own oil and oil-product exports (Chart 4, middle panel). China’s oil and gas sector does not necessarily benefit from collapsing oil prices. The country’s domestic oil exploration becomes deeply unprofitable when international oil prices collapse. Falling domestic demand for finished oil products and rising competition in the industry when prices are low squeeze out any extra profits for oil refineries (Chart 5). Chart 5China’s Energy Sector Suffers Too In An Oil Bear Market Chart 6Energy Costs: A Small Part Of Chinese CPI Chart 7US Consumers Benefit Much More From An Oil Price Decline Than Chinese Consumers Furthermore, unlike the US, Chinese household consumption does not get a boost from cheaper oil. Food prices, rather than energy, drive the overall consumer price inflation in China (Chart 6). In addition, China’s domestic petrol market is heavily regulated and retail prices for energy are set by the Chinese government. China does not pass on the entire benefit of an energy price decline to its consumers, a rigid policy that has not been changed since 2016.2 As such, the current reduction in oil prices will not have the same “tax cut” benefit as it does for US consumers (Chart 7). Bottom Line: Low oil prices, accompanied by a strong dollar and depressed global trade, create a self-feeding deflationary feedback loop to China’s industrial sector, reducing the effects of the existing reflationary measures on its economy. Budding Signs Of Reflation A modest recovery in oil prices in Q3 will not be enough to return China's PPI to positive territory. Even when the global economy re-opens, the initial recovery in business activities and demand will likely be gradual, a situation China has experienced in the past two months (Chart 8). Thus, China’s domestic demand will bear most of the brunt to shore up inflation in produced goods, by propping up investment and consumption growth. We expect China’s substantial reflationary measures to start filtering into the real economy in H2. China’s industrial sector should get a boost from an acceleration in infrastructure investment and producer prices should turn moderately positive later in Q3 (Chart 9). Chart 8China’s Export Growth Set To Decline Further In Q2 Chart 9Huge Credit Wave Should Start Lifting Industrial Profits In H2 High-frequency data point to some early signs of a rebound in China’s domestic demand. The annual growth in the transaction volume of rebar steel rebounded from an 8% decline in March to 4% growth in the first three weeks in April.3 The contraction in passenger car sales also narrowed from -38% in March to -7.3% so far in April.4 China is ramping up its COVID-19 antibody testing to prevent a second-wave outbreak and is preparing for the National People’s Congress (NPC), which may take place in mid-May. Inter-provincial travel restrictions have limited the speed of recovery in business operations, but we expect such cautionary measures to be fully lifted in late May. The removal of logistic restrictions will help to accelerate a return to normal in both domestic production and demand. As we noted in our last week’s report,5 the April 17 Politburo meeting confirmed a policy shift to maximum reflation. President Xi’s new slogan, “The Six Stabilities and The Six Guarantees,” sets the tone that the government will increase investments to ensure that China’s post-pandemic economic growth is strong enough to stabilize employment. Bottom Line: Chinese business activities continue to inch up. The recovery in domestic demand should pick up momentum in H2 to offset imported deflationary pressures on China’s industrial profits. Investment Conclusions In the near term, a strong US dollar is a key risk to the recovery of China’s industrial profits. The greenback not only generates downward pressure on oil prices and global trade, but also puts the RMB in a poor position of depreciating against the dollar but at the same time appreciating against China’s export competitors (Chart 10). All are creating headwinds to China’s economic recovery. We recommend that investors stay on the sidelines in the near term until the dollar peaks and oil prices rebound, probably in Q3. However, on a cyclical time horizon, as the global economy re-opens and demands slowly recovers in H2, the flood of stimulus including China's own reflation efforts should help to restore investors’ risk appetite and lift the prices of risk assets. Although Chinese stocks have passively outperformed global stocks this year, the strong rebound in the SPX in recent weeks has made Chinese stocks slightly less overbought in relative terms (Chart 11). Chart 10A Tough Combination For The RMB Chart 11Chinese Stocks: Slightly Less Overbought In Past Weeks We expect China’s corporate profit growth to outpace global earnings growth this year, even as other economies re-open and start to recover. This warrants an overweight stance on Chinese stocks after near-term risks and market gyrations subside. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "USD Strength Restrains Commodity Recovery," dated April 23, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 2The floor for retail fuel prices is set at $40 a barrel to limit losses at China’s state-owned oil companies, which generally have average production costs in the range of $40-$50 per barrel. http://english.www.gov.cn/news/top_news/2016/01/13/content_281475271410529.htm 3Based on daily data from MySteel. 4Based on weekly data from China Passenger Car Association. 5Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Three Questions Following The Coronacrisis," dated April 23, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Financial markets have experienced two weeks of wild swings: Following the negative 5-standard-deviation weekly move in the S&P 500 two weeks ago, the index moved at least 2.8% in each of last week’s first four sessions. 10- and 30-year Treasury yields made one all-time low after another. The coronavirus has arrived in the United States: It would appear inevitable that the coronavirus is going to spread across the US; the unknowns are how long it will spread, how deadly it will be, and how much it will impact the economy. Confronted with these unknowns, markets shot first and left asking questions for later. The selling may have gone a little far. The Fed and the Democratic candidates for president were in the news last week, … : The Fed made its first intra-meeting rate cut since the financial crisis was raging, cutting the fed funds rate by 50 basis points instead of waiting for its regularly scheduled March 17-18 gathering. Super Tuesday upended the chase for the Democratic presidential nomination, as our geopolitical strategists foresaw. … and we offer our quick read on their market impact: We expect that the Fed’s rate cut will be modestly positive for markets and the economy, while Joe Biden’s move to the head of the Democratic pack greatly diminished a risk that would otherwise have troubled investors all the way to November 3rd. Feature US equities have endured a rollercoaster ride over the last two-and-a-half weeks. From its all-time intraday high of 3,393.52 on February 19th, to the February 28th intraday low of 2,855.84, the S&P 500 corrected by 15.8% in just seven sessions. The brunt of the decline occurred two weeks ago, when the index lost 11.5% in its fourth worst week in the last six decades. The decline amounted to more than a negative 5-standard-deviation event, and took its place among what we now consider to be landmark episodes in US stock market history (Table 1). Table 1Socialism + Pandemic = History (But Not The Good Kind) The epic rout followed a weekend of distressing news. First, the coronavirus (COVID-19) slipped its Asian bonds, popping up fully formed in Italy and Iran in a sobering demonstration of its global reach. Second, Bernie Sanders had seemingly solidified his grip on the Democratic presidential nomination by trouncing the rest of the crowded field in the Nevada caucuses with nearly twice the share of the vote that he captured in his Iowa and New Hampshire wins. We therefore characterize the February 28th intraday low as the coronavirus/Sanders bottom. The former is still running around freely, but the latter has been largely contained. COVID-19 will surely be with us for a while longer, and may yet push the S&P 500 below its February 28th low, but it will have to do so without help from Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden reclaimed front-runner status following his tremendous Super Tuesday performance, and support for him coalesced with remarkable speed, relieving investors’ acute concern about a Sanders presidency. The primary campaign is still in its early stages, and the gaffe-prone Biden is capable of multiple stumbles between now and the nominating convention, but a general election without a self-declared socialist bent on ending health insurance as we know it will provoke considerably less market anxiety. The Rate Cut Equities had been pining for a rate cut, beginning last week’s surge upon the news that central bankers would be joining the G-7 Finance Ministers on their hastily arranged Tuesday morning conference call. After an immediate 2.5% pop upon the announcement of the intra-meeting cut, however, the S&P 500 sagged and wound up ending Tuesday’s session nearly 2% lower than its pre-cut level. The dismal market reception, and Powell’s own halting, tepid responses to questions at the press conference to discuss the rationale for the move left investors wondering if the Fed had made a mistake. We neither know nor care if it will turn out to be good policy, but we expect that the rate cut will lend support to risk assets over our 12-month investment horizon. Why would the Fed use monetary policy to try to combat a public health crisis, or any supply shock? Monetary policy tools were not made to fight public health crises. They will not speed the development of an antidote, make medical care more widely available, or make up for a lack of preparedness at the public health agencies leading the effort to blunt COVID-19’s spread. They also are not particularly well-suited to combat supply shocks. They cannot resolve global supply bottlenecks, put more people back to work in China, South Korea and Italy, or create and distribute all the test kits and protective clothing that medical professionals sorely need. It is within the Fed’s power, however, to try to keep COVID-19’s second-order economic consequences from taking root. Negative headlines, deserted shopping districts and runs on products like hand sanitizer and face masks can drag down business and consumer confidence. Falling confidence can weigh on consumption and investment, hobbling output, stifling employment growth, and raising the specter of a negatively self-reinforcing dynamic in which layoffs lead to less consumption, which feeds more layoffs, and less investment, etcetera. If the Fed can bolster the spirits of consumers and businesses, it can help to contain COVID-19’s adverse economic impact. Won’t this move leave the Fed with less ammunition down the road? Yes, it surely will, especially if the Fed would prefer to stick to conventional policy tools to combat the next recession. Last week’s cut may postpone the start date of that recession, however, affording the Fed a chance to execute a series of rate hikes before it arrives. For an investor with a timeframe that doesn’t exceed twelve months, it may not matter, provided the increased accommodation successfully reduces near-term recession risk. Do you think this move will be effective? At the margin, yes, we think it will. First of all, it will contribute to the mortgage-refinancing wave that has been building since the beginning of the year (Chart 1). With an average 3.45% 30-year fixed-rate mortgage rate, data provider Black Knight estimates 11 million borrowers could save at least 75 basis points by refinancing their existing loans.1 If the average rate were to fall to 3%, as it would if the spread between mortgage rates and Treasury yields simply eases back to the 2% neighborhood (Chart 2), the pool of potential refinancers would expand to 19 million. Reduced mortgage payments put more money in homeowners’ pockets and will help support consumption at the margin. Chart 1Mortgage Refis Were Already Ramping Up, ... Chart 2... And There Will Be Even More Activity Once Mortgage Spreads Normalize Lower rates will also increase demand for new-home purchases, which have positive multiplier effects, and other big-ticket consumer goods. They will also support investment at the margin, as hurdle rates fall, and more opportunities are projected to generate a positive net present value. Potential homebuyers may be less prone to attend open houses or conduct home searches if COVID-19 spreads, and skittish managers may be less prone to invest, but easier monetary conditions do promote economic activity. Finally, a Fed that is demonstrably committed to easing monetary conditions to mitigate COVID-19’s potential negative impacts may help shore up business and consumer confidence. It will take confidence to keep gloomy virus headlines from becoming a self-fulfilling recession prophecy. As Figure 1 illustrates, the Fed does have the means to boost demand in financial markets and the real economy. Figure 1Monetary Policy And The Economy What will it mean for markets? It may encourage investors to pay more for each dollar of a corporation’s earnings, helping to cushion equities from falling earnings projections (the Confidence/Risk Taking channel in Figure 1), though we think a surer outcome is that it will keep the search for yield at a fever pitch. Life insurers, pension funds and endowments can no longer rely on highly-rated sovereign bonds to deliver the income to meet their fixed obligations, but have very little leeway to allocate away from fixed income. They have therefore been forced to venture further and further out the risk curve (Figure 1’s Portfolio Balance Effect), which has had the effect of providing an ample supply of funds for less-than-pristine borrowers. Under zero- and negative-interest-rate policy (ZIRP and NIRP, respectively) just about any borrower aside from brick-and-mortar retailers and thinly capitalized oil drillers can attract a line of would-be lenders out the door and around the corner simply by offering an incremental 50-75 bps of yield. Since no borrower defaults, or goes bankrupt, as long as there is a lender willing to roll over its maturing obligations, extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy has had the effect of limiting default rates. We expect that the Fed’s move back in the direction of ZIRP will continue to squeeze spreads and ease financial conditions. That’s far from an ideal fundamental basis for owning spread product, and it won’t keep credit outperforming forever, but we expect it will allow spread product to continue to generate positive excess returns over Treasuries and cash over the next twelve months. Recession Prospects There is no doubt that the probability of a recession is rising. COVID-19 is already exerting intense pressure on the airline and hotel industries, and strapped small businesses will find themselves in its crosshairs soon. It is certainly possible that a recession could sneak up on us while we focus on our assessment of the monetary policy backdrop. But just as COVID-19 survival rates are heavily influenced by a patient’s intrinsic condition, the economy’s prognosis may be a function of its pre-outbreak status. To assess the economy’s vital signs, we begin with housing, the major economic segment with the greatest interest-rate sensitivity. If monetary policy is less accommodative than we’ve estimated, the housing market might be gasping for air, but it appears to be as fit as a fiddle. Permits and starts turned sharply higher in the middle of last year (Chart 3, top panel), following the sales component of the NAHB survey (Chart 3, bottom panel) and purchase mortgage applications (Chart 3, middle panel). Homes are already quite affordable, relative to history (Chart 4, top panel), and they’re bound to get even more affordable as mortgage rates fall. Chart 3Housing Charts Are Up And To The Right Across The Board Chart 4Homes Are Amply Affordable Nothing in the available data indicates that housing is running too hot. Residential investment’s contribution to GDP has flipped from barely negative to modestly positive (Chart 5), and there are no signs that its current course is unsustainable. Unsold inventories and the share of vacant homes are at 25-year lows (Chart 6), and starts and permits are only just catching up with the multi-year average of household formations, suggesting that the market has been undersupplied since the crisis excesses were worked off. The overall takeaway is that the housing market is in the early days of an overdue recovery that has plenty of room to run. Chart 5Residential Investment's Current Pace Is Easily Sustainable, ... Chart 6... And The Housing Market Still Looks Undersupplied Chart 7The Labor Market Is Strong Table 2No Sign Of Recession Here February’s employment situation report, ignored by markets in the throes of Friday's selloff, suggests that the labor market, and by extension the economy, was in fighting trim before COVID-19 took root in American soil (Chart 7). February’s net job additions far surpassed consensus estimates, and the figures for January and December were revised appreciably higher (Table 2). With the three-month moving average of net additions coming in one-third higher than expected, the report was nothing short of tremendous. The March release is sure to be worse, and the all-time record streak of expanding monthly payrolls may well come to an end, but the patient was in an awfully robust state before it encountered the virus, and that bodes well for its immediate future. The Democratic Primaries Super Tuesday turned out to be super for US financial markets. With all of the Democratic party’s machinery now at the service of Joe Biden, the probability that frightening left-tail outcomes might emerge from the general election has been dramatically reduced. Markets can live with a Biden-Trump contest no matter how it turns out. Although we thought that markets were exaggerating the potentially negative conditions that would ensue under President Sanders, they would have been subject to rolling bouts of angst every time his general election prospects rose. Though our geopolitical strategists unwaveringly saw the former vice president as the Democratic frontrunner, theirs was a decidedly minority view. Following the Nevada caucus, Sanders was viewed far and wide as the presumptive nominee. Although a Biden administration would presumably be less market-friendly than the current administration, he himself is a card-carrying member of the establishment and wouldn’t do anything that would upset the apple cart. From an investment perspective, Biden is the candidate that would Make America Predictable Again, and even if re-election is markets’ preferred outcome, the prospect of a Biden presidency is hardly frightening. Investment Implications Although our conviction level has fallen in the face of COVID-19 uncertainties, we hold to our view that a soft patch is more likely than a recession, and a correction is more likely than a bear market. We remain constructive on risk assets because we think the selling has gotten overdone. There may well be more of it, and the S&P 500 could reach its 2,708.92 bear-market level before we can publish again next Monday, but we will be buying it in our own account all the way there. We think the most plausible worst-case scenario is a sharp but short recession, produced by a nasty supply shock that frightens households and businesses enough that they cease to consume or invest. The demand strike would imperil indebted businesses that suffered the biggest revenue declines: airlines, hotels, restaurants, retailers, thinly capitalized oil producers and a range of small businesses. They would shrink their workforces and many would default on their loans. That would be bad, as all recessions are bad, but it wouldn’t be a replay of the crisis. Credit extended to the sorts of borrowers listed above, ex-small businesses, is well-dispersed throughout the economy via corporate bonds and securitizations. The exposures the SIFI banks and their large- and mid-cap regional bank cousins have retained will be easily absorbed by the layers of additional capital mandated by Dodd-Frank and Basel 3. It seems to us that markets are pricing in a significant probability of something much worse than a run-of-the-mill recession, and we think that sets up an attractive risk-reward profile for investors in risk assets. We reiterate our risk-friendly recommendations, though we now recommend that fixed-income investors maintain benchmark duration positioning. We failed to appreciate the potential scope for a decline in long yields and are correcting course now. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Boston, Claire and Raimonde, Olivia, “A 30-Year Mortgage Below 3%? Treasury Rally Offers Bargain Loans,” Bloomberg, March 5, 2020.
Highlights The coronavirus is a wild card that may have a significant impact on the global economy, … : The COVID-19 outbreak is unfolding in real time, half a world away, and its ultimate course is uncertain. For now, our China strategists think the worst-case scenarios are unlikely, but we will not remain constructive if the virus outlook materially worsens. … but as long as there is not a significantly negative exogenous event, the US economy will be just fine, … : From a domestic perspective, the US expansion is in very good shape. Easy monetary conditions will support a range of activities, and a potent labor market will give increasing numbers of households the confidence and wherewithal to ramp up consumption. … and if there’s no recession, there will not be a bear market: Recessions and equity bear markets coincide, with stocks typically peaking six months ahead of the onset of a recession. If the next recession doesn’t come before late 2021/early 2022, the bull market should remain intact at least through the end of this year. What We Do US Investment Strategy’s stated mission is to analyze the US economy and its future direction for the purpose of helping clients make asset-allocation and portfolio-management decisions. As important as the economic backdrop is, however, we never forget that we are investment strategists, not economic forecasters. We don’t belabor the state of every facet of the economy because neither we nor our clients care about 10- to 20-basis-point wiggles in real GDP growth in themselves. They do want us to keep them apprised of the general trend, though, and we are always trying to assess it. Ultimately, macro analysis benefits investors by providing them with timely recognition of the approach or emergence of an inflection point in the cycles that matter most for financial assets. We view investment strategy as the practical application of the study of cycles, and we are continuously monitoring the business cycle, the credit cycle, the monetary policy cycle and the squishy and only sporadically relevant sentiment cycle. This week, we turn our attention to the business cycle, and the ongoing viability of the expansion, which is already the longest on record at 128 months and counting. If it remains intact, risk assets are likely to continue to generate returns in excess of returns on Treasuries and cash. The Message From Our Simple Recession Indicator We have previously described our simple recession indicator.1 It has just three components, and all three of them have to be sounding the alarm to conclude that a recession is imminent. Our first input is the slope of the yield curve, measured by the difference between the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month T-bill.2 The yield curve inverts when the 3-month bill yield exceeds the 10-year bond yield, and a recession has followed all but one yield curve inversion over the last 50 years (Chart 1). The yield curve inverted from May through September last year, and the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) has driven it to invert again, but the unprecedentedly negative term premium (Chart 2) has made the curve much more prone to set off a false alarm. Chart 1An Inverted Curve May Not Be What It Used To Be ... Chart 2... When A Negative Term Premium Is Holding Down Long Yields The indicator’s second input is the year-over-year change in the leading economic index (“LEI”). When the LEI contracts on a year-over-year basis, a recession typically ensues. As with the inverted yield curve, year-over-year contractions in the LEI have successfully called all of the recessions in the last 50 years with just one false positive (Chart 3). The LEI bounced off the zero line thanks to January’s strong reading, and the year-ago comparisons are much easier than they were last year, but we are mindful that it is flirting with sending a recession warning. Chart 3Leading Indicators Are Wobbly, ... It takes more than tight monetary conditions to make a recession, but you can't have one without them. To confirm the signal from the yield curve and the LEI and make it more robust, we also consider the monetary policy backdrop. Over the nearly 60 years for which BCA’s model calculates an equilibrium rate, every recession has occurred when the fed funds rate has exceeded our estimate of equilibrium (Chart 4). Tight monetary policy isn’t a sufficient condition for a recession – expansions continued for six more years despite tight policy in the mid-‘80s and mid-'90s – but it is a necessary one. Our indicator will not definitively signal an approaching recession until monetary conditions turn restrictive. Chart 4... But The Fed Is Nowhere Near Inducing A Recession Bottom Line: In our view, the yield curve and the LEI both represent yellow lights, though the LEI has a greater likelihood of turning red, especially in the wake of COVID-19. Monetary policy is unambiguously green, however, and we will not conclude that a recession is imminent until the Fed deliberately attempts to rein in the economy. Bolstering Theory With Observation A potential shortcoming of our recession indicator is its reliance on a theoretical concept. The equilibrium (or natural) rate of interest cannot be directly observed, so our judgment of whether monetary policy is easy or tight turns on an estimate. To bolster our assessment of whether or not the expansion can continue, we have been tracking the drivers of the main components of US output. Going back to the GDP equation from Introductory Macroeconomics, GDP = C + I + G + (X - M), we look at the forces supporting Consumption (C), Investment (I) and Government Spending (G). (Because the US is a comparatively closed economy in which trade plays a minor role, we ignore net exports (X-M).) Consumption is by far the largest component, accounting for two-thirds of overall output, while investment and government spending each contribute a sixth. As critical as consumption is for the US economy, it is not the whole story; smaller but considerably more volatile investment is capable of plunging the economy into a recession on its own. The Near-Term Outlook For Consumption Chart 5Labor Market Slack Has Been Absorbed Consumption depends on household income, the condition of household balance sheets, and households’ willingness to spend. The labor market remains extremely tight, with the unemployment rate at a 50-year low, and “hidden” unemployment dwindling as the supply of discouraged (Chart 5, top panel) and involuntary part-time workers (Chart 5, bottom panel) has withered. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio trails only the peak reached during the dot-com era (Chart 6), which bodes well for household income. The historical correlation between the prime-age non-employment-to-population ratio and wage gains has been quite robust, and compensation growth has plenty of room to run before it catches up with the best-fit line (Chart 7). Chart 6Prime-Age Employment Has Surged, ... Chart 7... And Wages Will Eventually Follow Suit Chart 8No Pressing Need To Save, Or Pay Down Debt Households can use additional income to increase savings or pay down debt instead of spending it, but it doesn’t look like they will. The savings rate is already quite elevated, having returned to its mid-‘90s levels (Chart 8, top panel); households have already run debt down to its post-dot-com bust levels (Chart 8, middle panel); and debt service is less demanding than it has been at any point in the last 40 years (Chart 8, bottom panel). The health of household balance sheets, and the recent pickup in the expectations component of the consumer confidence surveys, suggest that households have the ability and the willingness to keep consumption growing at or above trend. Household balance sheets are healthy enough to support spending income gains; there's even room to borrow to augment them. The Near-Term Outlook For Investment Table 1GDP Equation Recession Probabilities Chart 9A Budding Turnaround We previously identified investment as the individual component most likely to decline enough to zero out trend growth from the other two components (Table 1), and it was a drag in 2019, declining in each of the last three quarters to end the year more than 3% below its peak. We expect it will hold up better this year, however, as the capital spending intentions components of the NFIB survey of smaller businesses (Chart 9, top panel) and the regional Fed manufacturing surveys (Chart 9, bottom panel) have both pulled out of declines. The trade tensions with China weighed heavily on business confidence in 2019, but the signing of the Phase 1 trade agreement lifted that cloud, and we expect that capex will revive in line with confidence once COVID-19 has been subdued. Government Spending In An Election Year Chart 10State And Local Revenues Are Well Supported Heading into the most hotly contested election in many years, we confidently assert that federal spending is not going to go away. Regardless of party affiliation, everyone in Congress sees the appeal of distributing pork to their constituents. Spending by state and local governments, which accounts for 60% of aggregate government spending, should also hold up well, as a robust labor market will support state income tax (Chart 10, top panel) and sales tax (Chart 10, middle panel) receipts. Healthy trailing home price gains will support property tax assessments, keeping municipal coffers full (Chart 10, bottom panel). Coronavirus Uncertainties The coronavirus epidemic (COVID-19) is unfolding in real time, generating daily updates on new infections, deaths and recoveries. Any opinion we offer on the economy’s future is conditioned on the virus' ongoing course. If it takes a sharp turn for the worse, with more severe consequences than we had previously expected, it is likely that we will downgrade our outlook. For now, we are operating under the projection that the virus will cause China’s first quarter output to contract sharply enough to zero out global growth in the first quarter. Our base-case scenario, following from the work of our China Investment Strategy service, is fairly benign from there. For now, we are expecting that the worst of the effects will be confined to the first quarter, and that the Chinese economy and the global economy will bounce back vigorously in the second quarter and beyond, powered by pent-up demand that will go unfilled until the outbreak begins to recede. Our China strategists continue to be heartened by Chinese officials' aggressive (albeit belated) measures to stem the outbreak, revealed in the apparent slowing of the rate of new infections in Hubei province, the epicenter of the outbreak (Chart 11, top panel), and in the rest of China (Chart 11, bottom panel). They also expect a determined policy response to offset the drag from the epidemic (Charts 12 and 13), as officials pursue the imperative of meeting their goal to double the size of the economy between 2010 and 2020. Chart 11Stringent Quarantine Measures May Be Gaining Traction Chart 12The PBOC Is Doing Its Part, ... Chart 13... By Easing Monetary Conditions If the economy is expanding, investors' bar for de-risking should be high. Bottom Line: Our China strategists’ COVID-19 view remains fairly optimistic, though it is subject to unfolding developments. Our US view is contingent on BCA’s evolving COVID-19 views. Investment Implications As we noted at the outset, we are not interested in the economy for the economy’s sake; we are only interested in its impact on financial markets. The key business-cycle takeaway for markets is that bear markets and recessions typically coincide, as it is difficult to get a 20% decline at the index level without a meaningful decline in earnings, and earnings only decline meaningfully during recessions. No recession means no bear market, and it also means no meaningful pickup in loan delinquencies and defaults. The bottom line is that it is premature to de-risk while the expansion remains intact. We reiterate our recommendation that investors should remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios, and at least equal weight spread product within fixed income allocations, though we may turn more cautious as we learn more about the progression of COVID-19. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the August 13, 2018 US Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Much Longer Can The Bull Market Last?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We use the 3-month/10-year segment instead of the more common 2-year/10-year because the 3-month bill is a cleaner proxy for short rates than the 2-year note, which incorporates estimates of the Fed’s future actions.
Highlights Bulk commodity markets – chiefly iron ore and steel – could see sharp rallies once Chinese authorities give the all-clear on COVID-19 (the WHO’s official name for the coronavirus). These markets rallied sharply Tuesday, as President Xi vowed China would achieve its growth targets this year, which, all else equal, likely will require additional monetary and fiscal stimulus. China accounts for ~ 70% of the global trade in iron ore, and ~ 50% of global steel supply and demand. COVID-19-induced losses have hit Chinese demand for steel hard, forcing blast furnaces to sharply reduce output. However, this partly is being countered by transitory weather- and COVID-19-related disruptions that are reducing iron ore exports from Brazil and delaying Australian shipments. Iron ore inventories could be drawn hard in 2Q and 2H20 to meet demand as steelmakers rebuild stocks and construction and infrastructure projects restart (Chart of the Week). The Chinese Communist Party celebrates its 100th anniversary next year. To offset the COVID-19-induced drag on domestic growth this year, which could take GDP growth below 5%, and a weak GDP performance next year additional stimulus is an all-but-foregone conclusion. Feature When policymakers really want to jumpstart GDP growth, their playbook typically turns to the real economy via policies that encourage construction, infrastructure development and manufacturing. There is a compelling case a strong rally in iron ore and steel will accompany the containment of COVID-19, reversing the 14% and 4% declines in both since the start of the year (Chart 2). Chief among the drivers of the rally will be the increase in fiscal and monetary stimulus required to restore Chinese GDP growth disrupted by the COVID-19 outbreak, which could reduce annual growth closer to 5% than the ~ 6% rate policymakers were targeting. Chart of the WeekLow Iron Ore Stocks Setting Up A Rally Chart 2Policy Stimulus Will Reverse Declines In Iron Ore And Steel Prices There are a number of reasons for expecting this. 2020 marks the terminus of the decade-long policy evolution that was supposed to end with the realization of the “Chinese Dream.” Chief among the goals that were to be realized by the end of this year – which will usher in the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party in 2021 – are a doubling of per capita income and of GDP.1 The Communist Party in China has numerous policy levers it can pull to respond to worse-than-expected growth and economic shocks. These policies consume a lot of bulk commodities and base metals. When policymakers really want to jump-start GDP growth, their playbook typically turns to the real economy via policies that encourage construction, infrastructure development and manufacturing. This was clearly seen following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008-09 (Chart 3). Even before the COVID-19 outbreak, policymakers made it clear they wanted to stabilize growth following the Sino-US trade war at the conclusion of the Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC) in December. Nominal wages and per capita income growth had been falling since 3Q18, imperilling one of the principal goals of the “Chinese Dream.” Chart 3Policy Stimulus Will Lift GDP And Iron Ore And Steel Prices Policymakers will aim for annualized quarterly growth of ~ 6.5% in 2Q- 4Q20 if their goal is simply to achieve 6% p.a. growth this year. Following that CEWC meeting, our colleagues at BCA’s China Investment Strategy (CIS) anticipated policymakers would announce growth targets at the National People’s Congress (NPC) meeting next month in the range of 5.8 and 6.2% p.a. growth, noting, “the Chinese economy needs to increase by 6% in 2020 to double its size from the 2010 level in real terms.”2 The growth rate required to put the economy on track to deliver on the “Chinese Dream” is now much higher following the COVID-19 outbreak, which could shave ~1% or more off China’s growth this year alone. This suggests policymakers will aim for annualized quarterly growth of ~ 6.5% in 2Q-4Q20 if their goal is simply to achieve 6% p.a. growth this year. This predisposes us to expect significant monetary and fiscal stimulus this year after the all-clear is sounded and the economy can return to its day-to-day activities. In addition – and by no means least of the concerns driving policymakers’ decisions – the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CCP will be celebrated next year, something policymakers at all levels have been looking forward to showcase the success of their revolution. A Boon For Bulks As monetary policy eases, the construction growth trajectory should pick up smartly. China accounts for ~ 70% of the global trade in iron ore. It is expected to import ~ 1.1 billion MT this year and next, based on estimates published by the Australian government’s Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in its December 2019 quarterly assessment (Chart 4). China will account for ~ 50% of global steel supply and demand, or roughly 900mm MT/yr in 2020 and 2021. The COVID-19 outbreak reduced utilization rates at the close to 250 steel mills monitored by Mysteel Global in China to 78%, a drop of 2.3pp.3 Platts estimates refined steel production could fall by 43mm MT by the end of February.4 Most of China’s steel output goes into commercial and residential construction (~ 35%), infrastructure (~20%), machinery (~ 20%), and automobile production (~ 7%), based on S&P Global Platts estimates.5 Residential construction began to recover last year, and residential housing inventories were declining relative to sales (Chart 5). In our view, once the COVID-19 infection rate falls outside Hubei Province – the epicenter of the outbreak – markets will begin pricing in a revival of commercial and residential construction in China. As monetary policy eases, the construction growth trajectory should pick up smartly (Chart 6). Chart 4China Dominates Iron Ore, Steel Markets Chart 5Resumption Of Construction Will Lift Demand For Bulks Chart 6Easier Money And Credit Policy Will Revive Construction Infrastructure spending already was on track to increase prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, based on our CIS colleagues’ reading of the CEWC statement issued in December, which “suggests fiscal support to the economy will mainly focus on infrastructure, and listed transportation, urban and rural development, and the 5G networks to be the government’s main investment projects next year.”6 This fiscal push will be supported by additional spending at the local government level, and by the issuance of special-purpose bonds by these governments with proceeds earmarked for infrastructure development (Chart 7). “A bigger fiscal push by the central government, coupled with a frontloading of 2020 local government special-purpose bond issuance, will likely boost infrastructure spending to around 10% in the first two quarters, doubling the growth in the first eleven months of 2019,” according to our CIS colleagues. Chart 7Pump Priming Will Boost Infrastructure Spending Bottom Line: Infrastructure fixed asset investment will be supported by easier credit and fiscal policy in China. Whether it rises at double-digit growth rates remains to be seen, however. Expect Chinese Consumers To Come Out Spending Infrastructure fixed asset investment will be supported by easier credit and fiscal policy in China. Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, consumer confidence was running high (Chart 8), and employment prospects have bottomed and turned higher, although they still indicate contraction. (Chart 9). This boded well for consumer-spending expectations, particularly for autos (Chart 10). Chart 8Consumer Confidence Was High Prior to COVID-19 Outbreak ... Chart 9... And Job Prospects Were Improving ... At ~ 7%, China’s automobile production remains a marginal contributor to overall steel consumption. Nonetheless, a meaningful pickup in automobile production following the depressed growth rate of the past 15 months would move steel demand upward. China’s share of world auto sales is ~30% (Chart 11). Chart 10... Thus Lifting Prospects For Chinese Auto Sales Chart 11Policy Stimulus Will Revive Chinese Auto Sector Accommodative monetary and fiscal policies in China point toward higher growth for the auto sector. However, it is important to note the revival in auto production needs to be driven by consumer demand – if it is led simply by restocking, the rebound will not be sustainable. The recovery we are expecting will support steel and metal consumption at the margin, but the outlook for infrastructure and construction remains key due to their higher weight in total steel consumption. Bottom Line: Auto consumption and production were recovering in late 2019; however, the strength of the recovery did not match previous stimulus programs (2009 and 2016). The recovery we are expecting this year will support steel and metal consumption at the margin, but the outlook for infrastructure and construction remains key due to their higher weight in total steel consumption. If these other sectors remain constructive for metal demand (or at least are not contracting or slowing drastically), the boost from the auto sector will meaningfully contribute to higher iron ore and steel prices. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Oil prices halted their decline and rose 1% on Tuesday as the number of daily confirmed cases of the Wuhan coronavirus decelerated in China. As of Tuesday, the daily growth in cases dropped to 5%, down from 6% the previous day. Investors will closely monitor this number for any sign of a durable slowdown in daily confirmed cases. Separately, the US Energy Information Administration revised down its global demand growth estimates for 2020 to 1.0mm b/d from 1.3mm b/d last month, reflecting the effects of the coronavirus and warmer-than-expected January temperatures in the northern hemisphere. We will be updating our global oil balances next week. Base Metals: Neutral Iron ore prices fell 14% since the COVID-2019 outbreak in January. Investors are assessing how the iron ore market will balance weaker demand expectations in China amid lower supply – largely a result of falling Brazilian ore exports. Brazil’s total iron ore exports fell ~19% y/y in January due to heavy rainfall and lower production at Brazilian miner Vale. The company’s output never fully recovered from the 2019 dam incident and remains a risk to iron ore supply in 1Q20. Vale lowered its March sales guidance by 2mm MT. Low Chinese port inventories raise prices’ vulnerability to supply disruptions (Chart 12). Precious Metals: Neutral Gold remains well bid despite a strong US dollar, fueled by safe-haven demand. The yellow metal’s price fell slightly on Tuesday as investors’ concerns over the coronavirus eased. Based on our fair-value model, prices averaged $55/oz above our estimate in January. Investors – i.e. global ETF holders and net speculative positions reported by the US CFTC – have been important contributors to the latest gold rally. Investors’ total holding of gold reached a record high 113mm oz last week. Nonetheless, we believe there is still opportunity for this group to further support prices: the share of gold allocation vs. world equity-market capitalization is still low at 0.24%, vs. its peak of 0.42% in 2012 (Chart 13). Ags/Softs: Underweight March wheat futures were down 1.8% at Tuesday’s close, settling at the lowest level of the year after the USDA called for ‘stable supplies’ of the grain for the 2019/2020 U.S. marketing year. For corn, ending stocks were unchanged relative to the January projection, while world production was revised slightly upwards. March corn futures finished 2¢ lower at $3.7975/bu. The USDA also estimated higher soybean exports on the back of increased sales to China. However, soybean price gains were limited by higher production and ending stocks abroad. Chart 12Low Iron Ore Inventory Raises Exposure To Supply Disruptions Chart 13A Higher Share Of Gold Holdings Could Support Prices Further Footnotes 1 The “Chinese Dream” is a phrase coined by President Xi Jinping, following the 18th Party Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in 2012, when the overarching goal of transforming China into a “moderately well-off society” was memorialized in writing. These goals were crystalized in terms of progress expected in per capita income and GDP, both of which were to be doubled in the decade ending this year. Please see Why 2020 Is a Make-or-Break Year for China published by thediplomat.com February 13, 2015. 2 Please see A Year-End Tactical Upgrade, published by BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy December 18, 2019, for an in-depth analysis of policy guidance coming out of the Economic Work Conference last December. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see WEEKLY: China’s blast furnace capacity use drops to 78% published by Mysteel Global February 10, 2020. 4 Please see China steel consumption to plunge by up to 43 mil mt in February due to coronavirus published February 6, 2020, by S&P Global Platts. 5 Please see China Macro & Metals: Steel output falls, but property creates bright spots published by S&P Global Platts December 6, 2019. 6 Please see footnote 2 above. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades
Highlights The SARS episode of 2003 suggests that the panic over the coronavirus will only subside when the number of new cases peaks. Although the latest data is somewhat encouraging, it is far from clear that we have reached that point. Provided the outbreak is contained, global equities should move higher over the course of the year. US companies remain net buyers of shares, implying that households and other holders have been net sellers. But against a backdrop of rising incomes, high savings, and improving confidence, households have also wanted to own more equities. How can households be net sellers of stocks while simultaneously increasing their equity exposure? There is only one answer: Share prices need to rise. The process will only stop once households decide they own enough stocks. In the US, while household equity holdings are on the high side as a share of household wealth, this is counterbalanced by the fact that the earnings yield on stocks is well above the yields on competing assets. Outside the US, household ownership of equities is quite low while the equity risk premium is still high. Going Viral We upgraded global equities after markets plunged in late 2018 and have remained overweight stocks on a 12-month horizon to this day. However, we indicated three weeks ago that equities had become technically overbought and would likely need to consolidate their gains. Thus, while we kept our 12-month views unchanged, we downgraded our tactical 3-month view on global stocks from overweight to neutral, while also advising clients with short horizons to boost exposure to cash and government bonds at the expense of riskier credit (our entire set of views can be found in the Global Investment Strategy View Matrix at the back of this report). Since then, the outbreak of the coronavirus has added another headwind to the near-term outlook for stocks. Many commentators have drawn comparisons between today’s outbreak and the SARS epidemic in 2003. The SARS episode imposed a significant but short-lived economic toll on the affected countries. While Chinese GDP growth fell to 3.4% in Q2 of 2003, it surged back to 15.7% in Q3, leaving the overall level of GDP down about 1% for the year as a whole relative to what would have transpired if the virus had never emerged.1 The broader Asia-Pacific region experienced a hit to growth of around 0.5%. In contrast, growth in developed economies was barely affected. Even in Canada, where 44 people died from SARS, the outbreak shaved only around 0.1% from the level of GDP in 2003, according to the Bank of Canada.2 The outbreak of the coronavirus has added another headwind to the near-term outlook for stocks. The obvious problem with the SARS analogy is that it is based on a sample of one. We do not know how this new strain of the virus compares to SARS or, for that matter, the Spanish flu, which killed 50-to-100 million people (3%-to-5% of the world’s population at the time). We do not even know if the full scope of the SARS outbreak was as fleeting as what we remember, since in a cosmic multiverse there will be a tendency to recall life-or-death outcomes more favorably than they actually were (I will have more to say about the financial implications of this in a future special report). Chart 1The Coronavirus Is Spreading Faster Than SARS Did What we do know is that, to date, the coronavirus has spread more quickly than SARS (Chart 1). It is not clear if that is because of faster, more accurate reporting methods or because the virus is more communicable. The Chinese Minister of Health has said that this new virus, unlike SARS, can be transmitted while people are still asymptomatic. While others have cast doubt on this claim, if it turns out to be correct, the coronavirus may be much more difficult to control. Viruses often become less lethal as they mutate because a virus that kills its host is also a virus that kills itself. Unfortunately, in a world of mass travel, a virus can spread across the globe before it has time to lose potency. The typical seasonal flu kills less than 0.1% of those who contract it. Most estimates suggest that SARS killed 10%-15% of infected patients. The Spanish flu killed a similar percentage. The death rate from the coronavirus is currently tracking at 2%-to-3%. However, it is possible that this estimate will rise. The vast majority of the people who have contracted the coronavirus are still sick. In fact, more people have died from it than have fully recovered (Chart 2). Thus, an honest assessment would simply admit that we do not know how bad this potential pandemic will get. Chart 2How Will This End: Outbreak, Epidemic, Or Pandemic? Chart 3Markets Bottomed As The SARS Infection Rate Was Peaking What should investors do? The SARS experience suggests that risk assets will only bottom when the number of new cases peaks (Chart 3). It is not clear that we have reached this point yet. While the number of new cases reported by China’s National Health Commission has stabilized over the past two days, this could just be a temporary respite (Chart 4). Until the rate at which new cases are diagnosed begins a clear downward trend, a somewhat cautious stance towards risk assets is warranted. Global Growth Should Recover Provided the outbreak is contained during the coming weeks, global equities should move higher over the course of the year. This is partly because global growth should pick up thanks to the lagged effects of last year’s decline in bond yields, an improvement in the global manufacturing inventory cycle, and diminished Brexit and trade war risks. Continued fiscal/credit stimulus out of China should also help. China spends less on health care than almost all other countries (Chart 5). It is likely that the past few weeks will prompt the government to increase social spending. Chart 4The Number Of New Cases Has Stagnated Over The Past Two Days Chart 5China: Public Spending On Health Care Has Room To Catch Up Higher Equity Prices: Just A Matter Of Arithmetic? Chart 6There Is A Structural Decline In Listed Companies In The US Chart 7The Supply Of US Stocks Has Been Drying Up In addition to stronger global growth, there is another factor supporting stocks which receives insufficient attention and is worth highlighting in this week’s report: corporate buybacks. US companies have repurchased about 3% of their shares every year for the past decade. On the flipside, only 110 companies went public last year, less than a third of the number of new listings in 1996-99. In fact, the number of publicly traded domestic companies has fallen by over 40% since 1996 (Chart 6). The combination of copious buybacks and dearth of IPOs has caused the S&P divisor – a broad measure of the total number of split-adjusted shares outstanding – to decline by a cumulative 9% since 2011. Between 1990 and 2004, the divisor increased by 40% (Chart 7). If companies are net buyers of stocks, then households and other holders must be net sellers of stock. But this raises an obvious question: What if households also want to be net buyers of stocks? Chart 8Households Are Bullish Chart 9High Equity Ownership By Households Translates Into Poor Long-Term Returns This question is highly relevant in today’s environment, where unemployment is low, wage growth is accelerating, the household savings rate is high, consumer confidence is strong, and a higher-than-average percentage of people expect stocks to increase in the coming months (Chart 8). Arithmetically, there is only one way that households can be net sellers of stocks while simultaneously increasing their equity exposure: Share prices need to rise. At what point will share prices stop rising? That depends on two things: 1) How much stock market wealth households hold relative to other assets; and 2) The risk-adjusted rate of return that households expect from stocks compared to other assets. Stock returns are highest when equity holdings are low, but sentiment towards stocks is improving. Conversely, returns are lowest when equity holdings are high, but stock market sentiment is deteriorating (Chart 9 and Table 1). Table 1Equity Returns Tend To Suffer When Bulls Are Losing Conviction The latter typically occurs during economic downturns when earnings are falling and risk aversion is rising. Thus, it is no surprise that recessions and equity bear markets tend to overlap (Chart 10). Chart 10Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Overlap Where Things Stand Today In the US, household equity holdings are on the high side. According to Fed data and our own estimates, households currently hold 33% of their financial assets in stocks (Chart 11). This is higher than in 2007, but still below the dotcom peak of 39%. Similarly, the monthly asset allocation survey conducted by the American Association of Individual Investors shows a somewhat elevated allocation to equities, although one that is still broadly on par with the 2003-2007 and post-2014 averages (Chart 12). Chart 11US Household Equity Holdings Are On The High Side (I) Chart 12US Household Equity Holdings Are On The High Side (II) Chart 13Relative Valuations Favor Stocks One major difference with prior occasions when US equity allocations were elevated is that the earnings yield on stocks at present is still quite a bit higher than the yield on competing assets such as cash and bonds (Chart 13). While this is mainly because interest rates are so low, it does suggest that households may seek to further increase their equity allocations provided that the economy continues to perform well. Foreign companies have been less aggressive re-purchasers of their own shares than their US peers. That said, household equity ownership is significantly lower outside the US (Chart 14). The spread between equity earnings yields and bond yields is also higher abroad, reflecting the fact that both PE multiples and interest rates are generally lower outside the US. Given that investors tend to favor companies listed in their home country, efforts by non-US investors to increase their equity allocations will primarily benefit stock markets outside the US. In addition, stronger global growth tends to favor EM and European equities, largely because stock markets in those regions have more of a cyclical bent (Chart 15). Thus, on balance, we recommend that investors overweight non-US stocks this year. Chart 14Equity Ownership By Households Is Lower Outside The US Chart 15Stronger Global Growth Tends To Favor A Cyclical Bias In Equity Allocation Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Jong-Wha Lee and Warwick J. McKibbin, “Globalization and Disease: The Case of SARS,” Brookings Institution, dated February 2004. 2 Please see Monetary Policy Report, Bank of Canada, October 2003. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
With the exception of multi-family residential real estate, American real rents have fallen, revealing that low rates have propelled commercial properties’ price appreciation over the past decade. The combination of falling real rents and surging property…
ハイライト
世界の成長は今年加速する態勢にあるが、コロナウイルスの感染拡大が短期的に支出を抑制する可能性がある。
歴史的に見て、失業率が非常に低い水準に低下したときに景気後退の確率が高まることが示唆されている。
この相関を説明するために3つの経路が提案されている：1) 失業率の低下により家計や企業が過度に拡張して経済が脆弱になること、2) 逼迫した労働市場に起因する賃金上昇が利益率を圧迫し、設備投資や採用を抑制すること、3) 潜在余力の縮小がインフレを促し中央銀行が利上げを迫られること。
第1の経路は、住宅バブルが形成され家計債務が非常に高水準に達している一部の小規模な先進国経済にとって非常に関連性が高い。しかし、米国、日本、およびユーロ圏の大半では差し迫った懸念ではない。
第2の経路の重要性は過小評価したい。というのも、賃金の加速は総需要を押し上げる可能性が高く、企業が省力化技術への設備投資を増やすインセンティブにもなるからである。
第3の経路が長期的には最大のリスクをもたらすが、今年の市場にとって直ちに重大となる可能性は低い。
投資家は今後12〜18か月間はグローバル株式に対して強気を維持すべきである。より慎重な姿勢は2021年後半から必要になるだろう。
グローバル株式：強気を維持
グローバル株式は8月の安値以降16％上昇しており、短期的な調整に脆弱である。しかし、年間を通じて世界の成長が勢いを増すと予想しているため、今後12か月の株式に対する見方は引き続きポジティブである。
最新の世界の製造業活動に関するデータは概ね当社の建設的な仮説を支持している。ニューヨーク連銀の製造業PMIは予想を上回り、フィラデルフィア連銀のPMIは約15ポイント跳ね上がり8か月ぶりの高水準となった。フィラデルフィア連銀指数の6か月先の企業見通し（ビジネスアウトルック）項目は2018年5月以来の好水準に上昇した。
欧州の製造業も今年改善するはずだ。ZEW指数のドイツ成長期待は1月に急騰し、2015年7月以来の高水準となった（チャート 1）。SentixやIFO指数も上昇している。励みになることに、ユーロ圏の自動車登録台数は12月に前年比22％増加した。
英国では、製造業者対象のCBI調査における企業信頼感が2019年Q3の-44からQ4で+23へと急上昇し、この調査の62年の歴史で最大の上昇幅となった。財政刺激策と混乱を伴うブレグジットのリスク低下も今年の成長を押し上げるだろう。
チャート 1
ユーロ圏に表れ始めた回復の兆し
Some Green Shoots Emerging In The Euro Area
Some Green Shoots Emerging In The Euro Area
チャート 2
新興アジアは回復基調にある
EM Asia Is Rebounding
EM Asia Is Rebounding
アジアの製造業および貿易データは改善している。先週の中国の貿易データ改善を受けて、韓国の輸出は変化率ベースで4か月連続の回復を示した。対中向けの日本の輸出は昨年2月以来初めて増加した。台湾では12月の鉱工業生産と輸出受注が予想を上回った。当社の新興アジア経済ディフュージョン指数は2018年10月以来の高水準に上昇している（チャート 2）。
コロナウイルス：侮れない存在か？
コロナウイルスの感染拡大は、芽生えつつある世界経済の回復に対する短期的な脅威を表している。概念的には、流行は経済に2つの方法で影響を及ぼし得る。第一に、旅行、娯楽、レストラン、あるいは他者との近接を伴うあらゆる支出を抑制することで需要を減らす。第二に、人々が出勤を避けることで供給を減少させる。
実際には、第一の影響が通常第二を上回る。その結果、そのような流行はデフレ圧力をもたらす傾向がある。
ブルッキングス研究所は、2003年のSARS流行が中国の当該年の成長率を約1ポイント押し下げたと推定している。1 今回の流行が中国の旧正月期間中に発生しており、4億人を超える人々が移動する時期であることは、ウイルスの伝播を助長し、経済的被害を増幅させる可能性がある。
とはいえ、同じ動物由来ウイルスの一群に属するものの、初期の所見では今回の株はSARSほど致死的ではない可能性が示唆されている。加えて、中国当局はSARS流行時よりも速やかにリスク対応を行っている。感染源と見られる人口1100万人の武漢市を事実上隔離し、ウイルスの配列を解析して国際医療コミュニティと共有した。これにより米国疾病対策センター（CDC）はウイルス検査を開発でき、数週間以内に利用可能になる見込みである。
低失業率の負の側面
コロナウイルスの流行が封じ込められることを前提とすれば、より強い世界成長は残存する労働市場の余剰を吸収し続けるだろう。ここで問題になるのは、失業率が低下し続けると、ある時点でそれが逆効果になり得るかどうかである。
コロナウイルスの感染拡大は、芽生えつつある世界経済の回復に対する短期的な脅威を表している。
OECDの失業率は現在5.1%で、2007年の最安値5.5%を下回っている（チャート 3）。米国では失業率は50年ぶりの低水準に低下している。
チャート 3
ほとんどの経済で失業率は危機前の最安値を下回っている
Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?
Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?
金融危機以降の失業率の低下は歓迎すべき動きであることは誰も否定しない。しかし、それには1つの主要なリスクが伴う。歴史的に、失業率が非常に低い水準に低下すると景気後退の可能性が高まることが示されている（チャート 4）。
チャート 4
労働市場が過熱し始めると景気後退の可能性が高まる
Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?
Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?
この正の相関を説明するために3つの経路が提案されている：1) 失業率の低下により家計や企業が過度に拡張して経済が脆弱になること、2) 逼迫した労働市場に起因する賃金上昇が利益率を圧迫し、設備投資や採用を抑制すること、3) 潜在余力の縮小がインフレを促し、これが中央銀行に利上げを強いることで成長を抑制すること。
それぞれを順に検討しよう。
失業率と非合理的な熱狂
チャート 5
一部の経済で拡大する住宅の不均衡
Growing Housing Imbalances In Some Economies
Growing Housing Imbalances In Some Economies
強い経済はリスクテイクを促進する。ある程度のリスクテイクは資本主義にとって不可欠だが、過度のリスクテイクは不均衡の蓄積を招き、最終的な下振れの舞台を整える可能性がある。
オーストラリア、ニュージーランド、カナダ、北欧諸国では、低金利と強い経済成長の組み合わせが家計債務を伴う住宅バブルを煽っている（チャート 5、パネル3）。先週議論したとおり、それらの経済で金利が上昇すれば経済的な困窮の芽を生む可能性がある。2
その他ほとんどの国では、金融の不均衡は景気後退を引き起こすほど深刻ではない。チャート 6は、民間部門の金融バランス（民間部門の収入と支出の差）が先進国では依然としてGDPの3.4％の健全な黒字を保っていることを示している。2007年には先進国の民間部門金融バランスは0.4％に低下し、米国では2％の赤字に達していた。民間部門のバランスは2001年の景気後退前にも急速に悪化していた（チャート 7）。
チャート 6
ほとんどの経済で民間部門の支出は所得を下回っている
Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?
Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?
チャート 7
民間部門の黒字は前回の景気拡大終了前よりも大きい
The Private-Sector Surplus Is Larger Than It Was Before The End Of Previous Expansions
The Private-Sector Surplus Is Larger Than It Was Before The End Of Previous Expansions
米国では個人貯蓄率が約8％まで上昇しており、家計の純資産水準から予想される水準よりもはるかに高い（チャート 8）。2018/19年に実質個人消費は約2.5％で成長したが、消費者信頼感の水準から予想されるペースよりも遅かった。これは家計が比較的慎重な態度を維持していることを示唆している。これと整合的に、家計の負債対可処分所得比は2008年以降で32ポイント低下している。
チャート 8
家計は予想以上に貯蓄している
Households Are Saving More Than One Would Expect
Households Are Saving More Than One Would Expect
確かに、いくつかのクレジットカテゴリは大きく増加している（チャート 9）。学生ローンは可処分所得の9％に達している。自動車ローンはリセッション前の高水準に戻っている。
前者については大半の学生ローンが政府によって保証されているため、それほど心配していない。自動車ローンの方が懸念材料ではある。しかし、自動車ローン市場は住宅ローン市場の6分の1未満の規模であることを留意しておくべきだ。
さらに、2011年から2016年にかけて自動車ローンの与信基準を緩めた後、銀行はその基準を引き締めてきた。この調整はほぼ完了しているように見える。最新のシニアローン担当者調査では与信基準はこれ以上引き締まらず、自動車ローン需要は2年ぶりの速さで増加した。自動車ローンの延滞に陥る割合は低下傾向にあり、延滞率はピークに達していることを示唆している（チャート 10）。
チャート 9
学生ローンと自動車ローンの増加にもかかわらず米国の家計債務は低下している
US Household Debt Levels Have Fallen, Despite Increases in Student And Auto Loans
US Household Debt Levels Have Fallen, Despite Increases in Student And Auto Loans
チャート 10
自動車ローン：与信基準と延滞率の動向をモニタリング
Auto Loans: Monitoring Trends In Credit Standards And Delinquency Rates
Auto Loans: Monitoring Trends In Credit Standards And Delinquency Rates
最後に、自動車市場の騒ぎにもかかわらず、自動車ローン担保証券は良好なパフォーマンスを示していることを指摘しておきたい（チャート 11）。デフォルト率は上昇しているが、貸し手は通常、発生する損失を吸収できるだけの利率を設定している。
チャート 11
証券化された自動車ローンは良好な実績を示している
Securitized Auto Loans Have Performed Well
Securitized Auto Loans Have Performed Well
利益率の低下は景気拡大を狂わせるか？
利益率は通常、景気後退の発生の数年前にピークに達することが多い（チャート 12、上段）。このため、利益率の低下が企業の採用意欲や新たな生産能力への投資意欲を削ぎ、景気後退をもたらすのではないかと推測する者もいる。
チャート 12
利益率のピーク：不吉な兆候か？
A Peak In Profit Margins: An Ominous Sign?
A Peak In Profit Margins: An Ominous Sign?
興味深い理論ではあるが、精査すると支持されにくい。企業景況感調査は明確に、設備投資の意図は賃上げ計画と正の相関があることを示している（チャート 13、左パネル）。賃金の上昇に応じて設備投資を削減するどころか、賃上げを計画している企業の方がむしろ設備投資を増やす傾向がある。
チャート 13A
賃金上昇、採用増、設備投資の増加は同時に進む（I）
Faster Wage Growth, Increased Hiring, And More Capex Go Hand In Hand (I)
Faster Wage Growth, Increased Hiring, And More Capex Go Hand In Hand (I)
チャート 13B
賃金上昇、採用増、設備投資の増加は同時に進む（II）
Faster Wage Growth, Increased Hiring, And More Capex Go Hand In Hand (II)
Faster Wage Growth, Increased Hiring, And More Capex Go Hand In Hand (II)
その一因は、賃金上昇が自動化をより魅力的にすることである。自動化は定義上、より多くの設備投資を必要とする。しかし、それだけが理由ではなく、賃金成長が高まっている期間には企業は同時により多くの労働者を雇用する傾向がある（チャート 13、右パネル）。
これは第三の要因―強い経済成長―が賃金と採用意図の両方を加速させていることを示唆している。実際、実質の企業売上は雇用成長と非住宅投資の双方と強く相関していることがこの主張の証拠である（チャート 12、下段）。
利益率低下：問題の症状に過ぎない
上記の議論は、賃金の加速が企業を採用や設備投資から思いとどまらせる可能性は低いことを示唆している。むしろその逆であろう。一般に、労働者は企業よりも所得の1ドル当たり多くを消費するため、国民所得に占める労働者の取り分が増えれば総需要は上向く。
では、なぜ利益率は通常景気後退前にピークを迎えるのか。その答えは、労働市場の余剰が縮小すると単位労働コストが上昇し、中央銀行が高まるインフレを抑えるために利上げを余儀なくされる傾向があることだ。したがって、利益率の低下は根本問題である経済の過熱の単なる症状にすぎない。景気後退の原因を利益率の低下に帰するべきではない。中央銀行を批判すべきなのである。
インフレはまだ脅威ではない
現時点では、主要経済の単位労働コストのインフレは比較的抑制されている（チャート 14）。しかし、労働市場の余剰と賃金上昇の歴史的関係が崩れたという証拠はほとんどない（チャート 15）。生産性の大幅な上振れがない限り、企業が上昇した労働コストを顧客に転嫁しようとするため、インフレは最終的に加速する可能性が高い。
チャート 14A
当面、単位労働コストは安定している（I）
Unit Labor Costs Are Well Behaved For Now (I)
Unit Labor Costs Are Well Behaved For Now (I)
チャート 14B
当面、単位労働コストは安定している（II）
Unit Labor Costs Are Well Behaved For Now (II)
Unit Labor Costs Are Well Behaved For Now (II)
チャート 15
労働市場の余剰と賃金上昇の相関は維持されている
Correlation Between Labor Market Slack And Wage Growth Remains Intact
Correlation Between Labor Market Slack And Wage Growth Remains Intact
いつそのような物価・賃金のらせんが出現するかを正確に知ることはできない。インフレは著しく遅行する指標である（チャート 16）。当社の最良の見立てでは、インフレは2021年末から2022年にかけて投資家にとって深刻なリスクになり得る。したがって、投資家は今後12〜18か月はグローバル株式の比重を高める（オーバーウェイト）べきだが、2021年後半にはより慎重になる準備をしておくべきである。
チャート 16
インフレは遅行指標である
Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?
Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?
Peter Berezin チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト peterb@bcaresearch.com
脚注
1 Jong-Wha Lee and Warwick J. McKibbin, “Globalization and Disease: The Case of SARS,” Brookings Institution, 2004年2月付。
2 詳細はグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー週次レポート、「Bond Yields: How High Is Too High?」2020年1月17日付を参照のこと。
グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー ビュー・マトリクス
Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?
Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?
マクロクォント・モデルと現在の主観的スコア
Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?
Who’s Afraid Of Low Unemployment?
戦略的推奨
決済済み取引