Recession-Hard/Soft Landing
Highlights If policymakers can neutralize default pressures arising from the lockdowns, the lasting impacts of this recession may not be so bad: As Jay Powell put it on 60 Minutes several weeks ago, policymakers just have to keep people and businesses out of insolvency until health professionals can gain the upper hand over the virus. Fiscal spending caused income and savings to spike, … : Generous transfer payments have left the majority of the unemployed better off than they were when they were working, and April household income and savings soared accordingly. … allowing consumers to meet nearly all of their obligations … : April’s income and savings gains showed up in reduced delinquencies across all categories of consumer loans and in solid April and May rent collections. May’s employment gains suggest that the private sector may not be too far away from taking the baton from Congress: The May employment report blew away expectations and sent risk assets surging, but the positive surprise may derail plans for further fiscal support. Feature Since March, investors have been presented with a simple choice: believe their eyes or believe in the government. They could either focus on horrendous economic data illustrating the crippling effects of widespread lockdowns, or they could trust in policymakers’ ability to shield most citizens and businesses from lasting damage. Our base case has been that policymakers would succeed, for the most part, provided they didn’t have to contend with acute COVID-19 pressures for more than six months. There are as many guesses about the virus’ future path as there are commentators, but it seems reasonably conservative to estimate that the most onerous restrictions will be eased by October. Chart 1DC To The Rescue In our view, preventing defaults is the key to mitigating the effects of the virus. If newly vulnerable debtors can be kept from defaulting until the economy can return to something resembling normal, a negatively self-reinforcing dynamic will not take hold, the infection will not spread to the financial system and creditworthy individuals’ and viable businesses’ temporary liquidity issues will not morph into solvency issues. Banking system data to confirm or disprove our thesis will not be available until August, however, as Fed and FDIC data are quarterly, and the shutdowns only began in late March. The unemployment safety net has turned into a trampoline; ... In this report, we have turned to a range of other sources for higher-frequency insights into what is happening in real time. We start with an academic paper showing that most laid-off workers are eligible for benefits comfortably exceeding their previous income, a conclusion reinforced by the April personal income data (Chart 1). We then look at April delinquency data from TransUnion, one of the major credit reporting agencies, and April and May rent-collection data from an apartment trade organization and large-cap publicly traded apartment REITs. We also review the Fed’s Survey of Consumer Finances to get a sense of household indebtedness across the income and wealth spectrums. For now, the data support the conclusion that policymakers have successfully defused credit distress pressures. What Comes In … Unemployment benefits typically fall far short of workers’ regular compensation, averaging about 40% of the median worker’s wage. To cushion the blow of unemployment from COVID-19, the CARES Act included a federal supplement to unemployment benefit payments distributed by the individual states. Added onto the average $400 weekly state benefit, the $600 federal supplement would make the average worker whole (mean earnings are a little less than $1,000 a week). As income inequality has intensified, the compensation distribution for all American workers has come to exhibit a pronounced rightward skew. That skew has pulled mean compensation (the average of all Americans’ earnings) well above median compensation (the earnings of the worker at the exact middle of the earnings distribution).1 By targeting mean compensation, the CARES Act opened the door for a lot of lower-income workers to make more money in unemployment than they did when they were working. According to a recent paper from three Chicago professors, 68% of unemployed workers are eligible to receive benefits that exceed their previous income, while 20% of unemployed workers are eligible for benefits that will at least double it. Overall, they calculate that the median worker is eligible to receive benefits amounting to 134% of his/her previous income.2 ... instead of keeping laid-off employees' incomes from falling below 40 cents on the dollar, it's launched them to $1.30. We offer no judgments about the policy merits of a 134% median replacement rate, but unusually generous benefits should help reduce the drag from unemployment that would otherwise ensue with a 40% replacement rate. Thanks to lower-income households’ higher marginal propensity to consume, consumption should rise at the margin (once activity resumes). Thanks to increased income, lower-income households should be better positioned to meet their financial obligations. We suspect the marginal consumption boost may be hard to see with the naked eye, but auto, credit card and mortgage delinquencies should be appreciably lower than any regression model not adjusted to reflect record replacement rates would predict. … And What Goes Out The Personal Income and Outlays data for April reflected the significant impact on household income of the up-to-$1,200 stimulus checks (economic impact payments) and the supplemental unemployment benefits. Despite an annualized $900 billion decline in employee compensation, personal income rose by nearly $2 trillion in April, thanks to a $3 trillion increase in transfer payments. De-annualizing the components, $250 billion in transfer payments offset a $75 billion decrease in compensation. At about $220 billion, the economic impact payments accounted for the bulk of the transfer payments, and they will fall sharply in May. The IRS did not disclose the amount of economic impact payments it had disbursed by April 30, but it appears that around 80% of the distributions have been made, leaving approximately $55 billion yet to be disbursed. Unemployment insurance receipts will rise in May on an extra week of benefits and an increase in the weekly sums of initial and continuing unemployment claims. We project that employee compensation rose about 3% in May, based on a 2% gain in employment and a 1% increase in average weekly earnings. Aggregating the February-to-May changes, it appears that May personal income ought to exceed February (Table 1). Absent another round of stimulus checks, however, personal income will slide below its pre-shutdown level beginning in June. Table 1May Personal Income Should Exceed Its Pre-Pandemic Level Income is not the sole driver of households’ capacity to service their debt, however. Assets matter, too, and even if the surge in cash flow was a one-off event, it left behind an elevated stock of cash as households slashed consumption in both March and April. Real personal consumption expenditures have fallen 19% from February’s all-time high and are now back to a level they breached in January 2012 (Chart 2). Households saved 33% of their April disposable income, and on a level basis, April savings were up nearly fivefold from their 2019 average. They were a whopping 20 times April interest payments, ex-mortgages (Chart 3). Chart 2Eight Years Of Spending Undone In Two Months Chart 3Consumers' Interest Coverage Ratios Have Soared Household Borrowers Are Staying Current … Table 2Consumer Borrowers Are Hanging In There It is possible to make too much of the April income and outlays data. We had been expecting another round of stimulus checks, but lawmakers’ comments even before the blockbuster employment report suggested one may not be forthcoming. Some of the savings activity was forced on homebound consumers, and some pent-up demand will surely be unleashed as the economy re-opens. Households amassed a mighty savings war chest across March and April, however, and it has left them better-positioned to service their debt obligations going forward. Despite an unemployment rate not seen since FDR, households made their scheduled payments in April. According to TransUnion, delinquency rates fell month-over-month across every major consumer loan category and delinquency rates for mortgages and unsecured personal loans declined on a year-over-year basis (Table 2). The TransUnion data comes from its inaugural Monthly Industry Snapshot, intended to provide a higher-frequency read on headline consumer credit metrics than its typical quarterly releases. In addition to crunching the delinquency numbers, the report noted that forbearance programs have helped ease consumer liquidity pressures, consumers have reduced their outstanding credit card balances and credit scores have slightly improved. None of the factors is decisive on its own, but they contribute to a marginally improved consumer credit outlook. … And Apartment Tenants Are Paying Their Rent It is more common for households in the lower half of the income and net worth distributions to rent their residence than own it. Just one in every five households in the bottom two quintiles of the income distribution (Chart 4, top panel), and one in four in the bottom half of the net worth distribution (Chart 4, bottom panel), have a mortgage. Rent is the single largest recurring expense for these households and the shutdowns made paying it a concern. Several newspaper stories have highlighted the plight of distressed renters while discussing grassroots rent-strike movements, but the National Multifamily Housing Council’s (NMHC) Rent Payment Tracker tells a different story.3 Chart 4Households In The Lower Half Of The Income And Wealth Distributions Rent Their Homes The Rent Payment Tracker distills the results of a national survey covering over 11 million professionally managed apartment units. Through May 27th, it reported that 93.3% of renters had made full or partial payments for the month of May. The share of paying tenants was down just 150 basis points year-over-year, and up 160 basis points month-over-month. The six apartment REITs in the S&P 500 reported April and May rent collections that were better than the NMHC data. By the end of May, the REITs had collected 94-99% of the April rent they were due, and 93-96% of their May rents (Table 3). (Equity Residential (EQR) reported its April collections through April 7th and did not provide an end-of-month update; on June 1st, it reported that its May collections through May 7th were in line with April’s.) Essex Property Trust (ESS), which owns a portfolio of apartments in southern California, the Bay Area and greater Seattle, provided a table showing how the economic impact payments and the supplemental unemployment benefit would affect the income of unemployed California and Washington state couples without children. Table 4 expands it to cover four income scenarios, illustrating just how far up the income distribution CARES Act relief stretches. Table 3Residential Tenants Are Paying Their Rent Table 4The CARES Act For Essex Property Trust Renters Who Borrows: Evidence From The Survey Of Consumer Finances Helping the households in the bottom half of the income distribution won’t materially limit credit distress across the economy if those households don’t have access to credit. The latest edition of the Fed’s triennial Survey of Consumer Finances, published in 2017, makes it clear that they do. Those households may be much less likely to carry mortgage debt (Chart 5), but they make up for it by borrowing via other channels. 64% of households in the bottom two quintiles have some debt, and the share grows to 70% when the middle quintile, which qualified for the full $1,200 economic impact payment, is included (Chart 6). Chart 5The Homeownership Income Divide Chart 6Households In The Lower Two Quintiles Have Debt To Service, Too Investment Implications The discussion above focused solely on the consumer, as we discussed the Fed’s efforts to assist lenders and business borrowers in a joint Special Report with our US Bond Strategy colleagues in April.4 Record corporate bond issuance in March and April – before the Fed bought a single corporate bond – testifies to the effectiveness of the Fed’s measures. Its corporate credit facilities bazooka was so large that it was able to soothe the roiled corporate issuance market without firing a single shot. Spreads have narrowed across the spread product spectrum and the primary and secondary markets are once again able to function normally. Too much economic improvement could be self-limiting, and the S&P 500 is trading at an ambitious multiple. We remain equal weight equities over the tactical three-month timeframe. The foregoing review of consumer performance reinforces our view that the SIFI banks should be overweighted relative to the S&P 500. The ongoing data indicate that the SIFI banks will not have to build up their reserves for loan losses as much as investors feared. Our conviction that the SIFI banks are unlikely to face material book value declines has only increased. It has become possible that second- and third-quarter reserve builds may be even less than our optimistic two-times-the-first-quarter view, but the virus will have the final say. The SIFI banks remain our favorite long idea. At the asset allocation level, we remain equal weight equities over the tactical three-month timeframe. We are encouraged by the green shoots visible in the employment report, but stocks are generously valued and the virus outlook is still unclear. The improvement on the ground could prove to be self-limiting if it kills the momentum for further fiscal assistance, or if it encourages officials and individuals to let their guard down regarding the social distancing measures that have been effective in lowering COVID-19 infection rates. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 According to the Census Department’s annual Current Population Survey, mean household income ($90,000) exceeded median household income ($63,000) by 42% in 2018. 2 Ganong, Peter, Noel, Pascal J., Vavra, Joseph S. "US Unemployment Insurance Replacement Rates During the Pandemic," NBER Working Paper No. 27216. 3https://www.nmhc.org/research-insight/nmhc-rent-payment-tracker/ Accessed June 1. 4 Please see the April 14, 2020 US Investment Strategy/US Bond Strategy Special Report, "Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed’s Anti-Virus Measures," available at usis.bcaresearch.com.
An analysis on Turkey is available below. Highlights Due to the sizable stimulus announced by the NPC, we are upgrading our outlook for Chinese growth for this year. Nevertheless, in terms of investment strategy, we are reluctant to chase China-related plays higher at the moment. Rising geopolitical tensions between the US and China will likely produce a pullback in China-related risk assets, providing a better entry point in the months ahead. The RMB is set to depreciate dragging down emerging Asian currencies. There is evidence that the equity rally from late-March lows has been driven or supercharged by retail investors worldwide. Such retail-driven manias never end well, though they can last for a while. Feature Emerging market equities are facing a critical technical resistance. Chart I-1 shows that over the past decade, EM share prices often found support at the horizontal line during selloffs. The latter could now become a resistance point. In turn, the Australian dollar and the S&P 500 have climbed to their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Stocks Are Facing A Technical Resistance Chart I-2S&P 500 And AUD Are At Critical Technical Juncture Having rallied strongly in the past two months, it is reasonable to expect that global risk assets will take a breather as investors assess the economic and geopolitical outlooks. China: Aggressive Stimulus… China has embarked on another round of aggressive stimulus. The government program approved by the National People’s Congress (NPC) last week laid out the following macro policy objectives: Stabilize employment. The NPC has pledged to create more than 9 million new jobs in urban areas. Although this is lower than last year’s target of more than 11 million new jobs, it is very ambitious given the number of layoffs that have occurred year-to-date. Chart I-3China: Money/Credit Is Set To Re-Accelerate Significantly accelerate the growth rate of broad money supply and total social financing relative to last year. Indeed, broad money growth accelerated in April and will continue to move higher (Chart I-3). Lending to enterprises and households as well as overall bank asset growth have all accelerated (Chart I-3, bottom two panels). Boost aggregate government spending (budgetary and quasi-fiscal) growth to 13.2% in 2020 versus 9.5% last year. Local government’s special bond quotas have been set at RMB 3.75 trillion yuan, compared with RMB 2.15 trillion last year. The central government will issue special bonds in the order of 1 trillion yuan. The proceeds will be transferred to local governments to support tax and fee reductions, as well as to boost consumption and investment. Support SMEs. The government will extend its beneficial loan-repayment policy for SMEs until March 2021. It will extend exemptions for SMEs on social security contributions, VAT and other fees and taxes through to the end of this year. The government estimates a total of RMB 2.5 trillion in tax and fee reductions for companies in 2020. Table I-1 details potential scenarios for the credit and fiscal spending impulse (CFI). In our baseline scenario, the CFI will rise to 15.5% of GDP by year-end (Chart I-4). In short, in 2020 the CFI will likely be larger than it was in 2015-’16 and closer to its 2012 level. However, it will still fall short of the 2009-2010 surge. Table I-1Simulation On Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse For 2020 Chart I-4Our Projections For The Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse In summary, it is fair to say that for now, the authorities have abandoned their deleveraging objective and are encouraging a substantial acceleration of both debt and credit. However, it will take time before the stimulus filters through the economy and boosts growth. This will be the case because of the following persistent headwinds: First, the reduced willingness of households and enterprises to spend. The top panel of Chart I-5 reveals that consumers’ marginal propensity to spend is falling. Enterprises’ willingness to invest continues to trend lower. Historically, companies’ willingness to invest has been a good indicator for industrial metals prices. So far it has not validated the advance in base metals (Chart I-5, bottom panel). The rationale for this correlation is that Chinese companies account for 50-55% of global industrial metals demand. Second, the COVID-19 economic downturn in China was much worse than previous downturns, and the financial health of companies and households is considerably poorer than before. This is why it will take very large amounts of stimulus to produce even a moderate recovery. In particular, a portion of the credit expansion will go toward plugging operating cash flow deficits at companies rather than to augment investment. For example, in the US, commercial and industrial loan growth surged in 2007/08 and this year (Chart I-6). In all of those cases, the underlying cause for credit acceleration was companies drawing on their credit lines to close their negative operating cashflow gaps. Chart I-5China: Households And Enterprises Are Less Willing To Spend Chart I-6US Loan Growth Spikes In Recessions The same phenomenon is presently occurring in China. This entails more credit origination will be required in China in this cycle before we witness a revival in capital spending. Third, geopolitical tensions between the US and China will escalate further in the months ahead. We elaborate on this in more detail below. As far as China’s growth outlook is concerned, rising geopolitical tensions with the US will weigh on both consumer and business confidence. On the whole, due to the sizable stimulus announced by the NPC, we are upgrading our outlook for Chinese growth for this year. Nevertheless, in terms of investment strategy, we are reluctant to chase China-related plays higher at the moment. Rising geopolitical tensions will likely produce a pullback in China-related risk assets, providing a better entry point in the months ahead. Chart I-7Chinese Economy: Still Very Weak In addition, the mainland economy is still undergoing post-lockdown normalization – not recovery. Both capital spending and household consumption are still in recession (Chart I-7). Bottom Line: China is yet again resorting to aggressive fiscal and credit stimulus. Mainland growth is bound to improve over the remainder of the year. However, financial markets have run a bit ahead of themselves, and we will wait for a pullback before recommending China-related plays. …But Geopolitics Is A Major Risk Despite an improving growth outlook, Asian and China-related risk assets could struggle in the months ahead due to escalating geopolitical tensions between the US and China. On the surface, the COVID-19 crisis seems to be the culprit behind rising tensions between the two nations. However, the pandemic has only accelerated an otherwise unavoidable confrontation between the existing superpower and the rising one. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team has been writing about cumulating tensions and the potential for them to boil over in the months before the US election. The contours of the rise in geopolitical tensions will be as follows: President Trump’s chances of re-election have declined, with the recession gripping the US economy and unemployment surging. There is little doubt that he will use external foes to rally the nation behind the flag. Blaming China for the pandemic and acting tough is probably the only way for Trump to switch his campaign’s nucleus from the economy to foreign policy, which will raise the odds of his election victory. The US administration will not resort to import tariffs this time around. Going forward, the administration’s goal will be cutting China’s access to foreign technology. Technology in general and semiconductors in particular will be the key battleground in this new cold war. The US will also step up its pressure on multinationals to move production out of China. The broader idea is to impede China’s technological advance. Even though the US rhetoric on China’s policies toward Hong Kong will be tough, there is little the US can do or will do regarding Hong Kong. Rather, the more important battleground will be Taiwan and its semiconductor industry. Finally, China’s political leadership cannot tolerate being perceived as weak domestically in the face of US pressures. They will retaliate against the US. One form of retaliation against Trump could be pushing North Korea to test its strategic military weapons that could undermine Trump’s foreign policy credibility in the US. Another form of retaliation could be tolerating moderate currency depreciation. The latter will challenge Trump’s claims that he has been victorious in dealing with China. The latest decision to ban US and foreign companies from accepting orders from Huawei and the slide in the value of the RMB are consistent with these narratives. To our surprise, however, financial markets in general and Asian markets in particular have not sold off meaningfully in response to the US ban on Huawei and renewed RMB depreciation. Critically, China is the world’s largest consumer of semiconductors, accounting for 35% of global semiconductor demand. Restricting Chinese purchases would be negative for global semiconductor producers. China has been aware of the risk of US restrictions on its imports of semiconductors and has been ramping up its semi imports since 2018. Semi imports have been booming even though smartphone sales had been shrinking (Chart I-8). This is a sign of large semiconductor restocking in China which has helped global semi sales in general and TSMC sales in particular in the past 18 months. In brief, major semi restocking by China in the past 18 months along with the ban on sales to Huawei all but ensure that global semiconductor sales will be weak this year. It does not seem that global semi stocks in general and Asian ones in particular are pricing in this outcome. Global semiconductor stocks are a hair below their all-time highs, and their trailing P/E ratio is at 21. Specifically, given Huawei is the second-largest customer of TSMC, the latter’s sales will be negatively affected (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Has China Been Stockpiling Semiconductors? Chart I-9TSMC Has Benefited From China Stockpiling Semiconductors Finally, both DRAM and NAND prices are falling anew (Chart I-10). Further, DRAM revenue proxy correlates with Korean tech stocks and points to lower share prices (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Semiconductor Prices Have Begun Falling Chart I-11Semiconductor Prices Are Still Deflating DRAM Revenue Proxy And Korean Tech Stocks Crucially, Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks account for 60% of the MSCI EM equity market cap. Hence, a selloff in these bourses will weigh on the EM equity index. Chart I-12 shows that the latest drawdown in these North Asian equity markets was relatively small compared to the drop in the rest of the EM equity universe. Hence, Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese share prices are not discounting a lot of bad news making them vulnerable to the geopolitical risks that lie ahead. Financial markets in Asia are very complacent to mounting geopolitical risks stemming from the US-China confrontation. The RMB is set to depreciate dragging down emerging Asian currencies. Chart I-12North Asian Stocks Versus The Rest Of EM Bottom Line: Financial markets in Asia are very complacent to mounting geopolitical risks stemming from the US-China confrontation. The RMB is set to depreciate dragging down emerging Asian currencies. The large share of Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks in the MSCI EM equity index implies significant downside risks to the EM equity benchmark. The Global Economic Outlook As economies around the world open, the level of economic activity will certainly begin to rise. The opening of shops, offices and various other facilities will result in a partial normalization and an increase in economic activities. However, we cannot call this a recovery. Rather it is just a snapback from the lockdowns which both equity and credit markets have already fully priced in. The outlook for global share prices and credit markets depends on what happens to the global economy following this post-lockdown snapback. Will the snapback be followed by an actual recovery or will the level of activity stagnate at low levels? For now, our sense is that following the initial snapback a U-shaped recovery is the most likely global scenario. This does not exclude the possibility that activity in some sectors/countries will follow a square root trajectory. From a global macro perspective, we have the following observations to share: Certain industries will likely experience stagflation. Due to social distancing measures, they will be forced to limit their output/capacity and compensate for their increased costs by charging higher prices. In this group, we would include airlines, restaurants, and other service sector businesses. The short-term outlook for consumer spending is contingent on fiscal stimulus. A material reduction in fiscal support for households will weigh on their spending capacity. Capital spending will remain subdued outside China’s stimulus-driven local government and SOE investment outlays, and outside the technology sector, generally. Critically, economic activity in many countries and industries will remain below pre-pandemic levels until late this year. This implies that despite the snapback, some businesses will still be operating below or close to their breakeven points. This will have ramifications on their ability to service debt and on their willingness to invest and hire. Any rise in government bond yields worldwide will be limited as central banks in both DM and EM will cap yields by augmenting their purchase of government and in some cases corporate bonds. We discussed EM QE programs in detail in last week’s report. Bottom Line: It is tempting to interpret the post-lockdown snapback in economic activity as a recovery. However, the nature and depth of this recession is unique. Investors should consider both the direction of economic indicators and the level of economic activity in relation to a company’s breakeven point. This is an extremely difficult task. And that is in addition to gauging the odds of a second wave of COVID-19 infections later this year. In the context of such complexities facing investors, there is astonishing evidence that the recent equity rally has been driven by unsophisticated retail investors. A Retail-Driven Equity Rally There is growing evidence that the equity rally from late-March lows has been driven or supercharged by retail investors, worldwide. There is growing evidence that the equity rally from late-March lows has been driven or supercharged by retail investors, worldwide. Such retail-driven manias never end well, though they can last for a while. The following articles corroborate the worldwide phenomenon that retail investors have been opening broker accounts en masse and investing in stocks: Bored Day Traders Locked at Home Are Now Obsessed With Options Frustrated sports punters turn to US stock market Coronavirus spawns new generation of Japanese stock pickers Stuck at Home, More Filipinos Try Luck at Stock Investing It is fair to assume that retail investors do very little fundamental analysis. Not surprisingly, since March global share prices have decoupled from profit expectations. Although some professional investors have no doubt also played the rally, surveys of asset managers and traders suggest that generally they have stayed lukewarm on stocks. Specifically, the net long position of asset managers and leveraged funds in various US equity index futures remains very low (Chart I-13). Chart I-14 shows that US traders’ and professional individual investors’ sentiment on US stocks are at multi-year lows. Only US investment advisors have become fairly bullish again (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Chart I-13Fund Managers Have Stayed Lukewarm On Stocks Chart I-14Professional Investors’ Sentiment On Stocks Have Been Subdued Who will capitulate first: retail or professional investors? It is hard to predict the behavior of investors but, if we had to guess, our take could be summed up as follows: If geopolitical tensions escalate much more or the number of COVID-19 inflections in some large countries rises anew, retail investors will likely sell before professional investors step in. In this scenario, share prices will drop considerably. In the case of an absence of geopolitical tensions or a new wave of infections, it is hard to see how economic data that is improving could lead to a substantial drawdown in equities even if the level of activity remains very depressed. In this case, corrections will be small and short-lived. Investment Strategy Chart I-15Beware Of Breakdowns For global equity portfolios, we continue recommending underweighting EM stocks. Regardless of the direction of global share prices, EM will continue underperforming DM (Chart I-15, top panel). The basis for this is rising geopolitical tensions in China and weakness in the RMB will spill over into other emerging Asian currencies (Chart I-15, bottom panel). We continue recommending short positions in the RMB and KRW versus the US dollar. In terms of the absolute performance of EM equities and credit markets, as well as EM currencies versus the greenback, we recommend being patient. Global and EM financial markets are presently at a critical juncture, as illustrated in Charts 1 and 2 on pages 1 and 2. If these and some other markets meaningfully break above current levels of resistance, we will upgrade our stance on EM stocks and credit markets and close our short positions in EM currencies versus the US dollar. If they fail to do so, a considerable selloff is likely to follow. As to EM local currency bonds, we are long duration but cautious on EM currencies. For the full list of our recommendations for EM equity, credit, local fixed-income and currency markets, please refer to pages 18 and 19. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, CFA Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com Turkish Lira: Facing A Litmus Test The Turkish lira has rolled over at its resistance level on a total return (including carry) basis (Chart II-1). The spot rate versus the US dollar is at its 2018 low. In short, the exchange rate is facing a litmus test. The culprit of a potential downleg in the lira is an enormous monetary deluge. Chart II-2 reveals that broad money supply growth has accelerated to 35% from a year ago. Local currency money supply is skyrocketing because the central bank and commercial banks are engaged in rampant money creation and public debt monetization. Chart II-1Turkish Lira (Including Carry): A Good Point To Short Chart II-2Turkey’s Broad Money: The Sky Is The Limit While such macro policies could benefit economic growth in the short term, they also herald growing inflationary pressures and currency devaluation. First, Turkish commercial banks have been on a government bonds buying binge since 2018 (Chart II-3, top panel). They presently own 62% of total local currency government bonds, up from 45% in early 2018. In addition, the central bank is de-facto engaging in government debt monetization. The Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) has bought TRY 40 billion of government bonds in the secondary market since March (Chart II-3, bottom panel). When a central bank or commercial bank buys a local currency asset from a non-bank, a new local currency deposit is created in the banking system and the money supply expands. Chart II-3Turkey: Public Debt Monetization In Full Force Chart II-4Turkey: Loan Growth Exceeds 30% Second, the commercial banks’ local currency loan growth has surged to 32% (Chart II-4). Government lending schemes and newly introduced regulations are incentivizing commercial banks to continue lending in order to boost domestic demand. In particular, state owned banks are providing loans at interest rates well below both the policy and inflation rates. The most likely outcome from such policies is rampant capital misallocation and an increase in non-performing loans. The former will weigh on productivity in the long turn. Third, the central bank has been providing enormous amounts of liquidity to commercial banks (Chart II-5, top panel). The latter’s local currency excess reserves – which are exclusively created out of thin air by the central bank - have surged (Chart II-5, bottom panel). In fact, the effective policy rate has been hovering below the actual policy rate, suggesting that there is an excess liquidity overflow in the banking system. In a nutshell, the central bank has been providing fuel to commercial banks to expand money supply via the purchases of local currency government bonds and loan origination. Fourth, an overly loose monetary stance will lead to higher inflation and currency devaluation. Moreover, wages continue to expand at an annual rate of 15-20%, confirming the fact that inflationary pressures are genuine and broad within this economy (Chart II-6). Higher inflation, and the consequent loss of purchasing power, is leading residents to switch their holdings of liras to foreign currencies. Chart II-5Central Banks' Liquidity Provision To Banks Chart II-6Turkey: A Sign Of Genuine Inflation Higher inflation, and the consequent loss of purchasing power, is leading residents to switch their holdings of liras to foreign currencies. Finally, Turkey’s current account deficit is set to widen, and the central bank’s net foreign currency reserves are non-existent at best. Booming credit growth will keep domestic demand and imports stronger than they otherwise would be. In the meantime, the complete collapse in tourism revenues and Turkey’s large foreign debt obligations, estimated at $160 billion over the next six months, entail negative balance of payment dynamics. Barring capital controls, Turkey will not be able to preclude further currency depreciation. Investment Implications Short the Turkish lira versus the US dollar. We recommend dedicated equity investors underweight Turkish equities and credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Also, we are reiterating our short Turkish banks / long Russian banks position. Local currency yields will offer little protection against currency depreciation. As such, investors should underweight domestic bonds. Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations
Highlights Risk assets continue to ignore the dire state of the economy. “Don’t fight the Fed” will dictate investment policy for the coming months. Populism and supply-chain diversification will shape the world after COVID-19. Global stimulus will result in higher long-term inflation when the labor market returns to full employment. Asset prices are not ready for higher inflation rates. Precious metals, especially silver, will offer inflation protection. Stocks should structurally outperform bonds, even if they generate lower returns than in the past. Tech will continue to rise for now, but this sector will suffer when inflation turns higher. Feature Despite the continued collapse in economic activity, the S&P 500 remains resilient, bolstered by the largesse of the Federal Reserve and US government, and generous stimulus packages in other major economies. Stocks will likely climb even higher with this backdrop, but a violent second wave of COVID-19 infections may derail the scenario in the near term. The biggest risk, which is long-term in nature, is rising inflation. Public debt ratios will skyrocket in the G-10 and many emerging markets. Private debt loads, which are elevated in most countries, will also increase. Add rising populism and ageing populations into this mix and the incentive to push prices higher and reduce real debt loads becomes too enticing. Long-term investors must be wary. For the time being, overweight equities relative to bonds, but the specter of rising inflation suggests that growth stocks (e.g. tech) will not offer attractive long-term returns. Investors with an eye on multi-year returns should use the ongoing surge in growth stocks to strategically switch their portfolios toward small-cap equities, traditional cyclicals and precious metals. Economic Freefall Continues Most economic indicators paint a dismal picture for the US. Industrial activity is suffering tremendously. In April, industrial production collapsed by 15%, a pace matching the depth of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). The ISM New Orders-to-Inventories ratio remains extremely weak with no glimmer of a rebound in IP in May. The numbers for trucking activity and railway freight are equally poor. Chart I-1A Worried Consumer Saves The US labor market has not been this ill since the 1930s. 20.5 million jobs vanished in April and the unemployment rate soared to 14.7%, despite a 2.5 percentage point decline in the participation rate. The number of employees involuntarily working in part-time positions has surged by 5.9 million, which has hiked up the broader U-6 unemployment rate to 22.8%. Wage growth has rebounded smartly to 7.7%, but this is an illusion. Average hourly earnings rose only because low-wage workers in the leisure and hospitality fields bore the brunt of the pain, accounting for 37% of layoffs. The worst news is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) classifies any worker explicitly fired due to COVID-19 as temporarily laid off, but without a vaccine it is highly unlikely that employment in the leisure, hospitality or airline sectors will normalize anytime soon. Unsurprisingly, lockdowns have limited the ability of households to spend. Americans have boosted their savings rate to 13.1%, the highest level in 39 years, as they worry about catching a potentially deadly illness, losing their jobs, watching their incomes fall, or all of the above (Chart I-1). This double hit to both employment and consumer confidence sparked a 22% collapse in retail sales on an annual basis in April, the worst reading on record. Putting it all together, real GDP contracted at a 4.8% quarterly annualized rate in Q1 2020 and the Congressional Budget Office expects second-quarter annual growth to plummet to -37.7%. The New York Fed’s Weekly Economic Index suggests a more muted contraction of 11.1% (Chart I-2), which would still represent a post-war record. Investors must look beyond the gloom. The economic weakness is not limited to the US. In Europe and in emerging markets, retail sales and auto sales are disappearing at an unparalleled pace. Industrial production readings in those economies have been catastrophic and manufacturing PMIs are still in deeply contractionary territory. As a result, our Global Economic A/D line and our Global Synchronicity indicator continues to flash intense weakness (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The Worst Is Still To Come Chart I-3Dismal Growth, Everywhere Chart I-4China Leads The Way Investors must look beyond the gloom. China’s experience with COVID-19 is instructive despite questions regarding the number of cases reported. China was the first country to witness the painful impact of COVID-19 and the quarantines needed to fight the disease. It was also the first country to control the virus’s spread and, most importantly, to escape the lockdown, along with being the first to enact economic stimulatory measures. The results are clear: industrial production, domestic new orders, and to a lesser extent, retail sales, are all experiencing V-shaped recoveries (Chart I-4). Even Chinese yields are rising, despite interest rate cuts by the People’s Bank of China. Accommodative Policy Matters Most The global policy “put option” is still in full force, which is boosting asset prices. A 41% rally in the median US stock reflects both a massive amount of funds inundating the financial system and a recovery that will take hold in the coming 12 months in response to this stimulus and the end of lockdowns. Global monetary policies have been even more aggressive than after the GFC. Interest rates have fallen as quickly and as broadly as they did around the Lehman bankruptcy. Moreover, unorthodox policy measures have become the norm (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Easy Policy, Everywhere In China, credit generation is quickly accelerating and has reached 28% of GDP, the highest in 2 years. Moreover, policymakers are emphasizing the need to create 9 million jobs in cities and keep the unemployment rate at 6%. Consequently, the recent rebound in construction activity will continue because it is a perfect medium to absorb excess workers. The ever-expanding quotas for local government special bonds to CNY3.75 trillion will also ensure that infrastructure spending energizes any recovery. Therefore, we expect Chinese imports of raw materials and machinery to accelerate into the second half of the year. The country’s orders of machine tools from Japan have already bottomed, which bodes well for overall Japanese orders (Chart I-6). Europe has also moved in the right direction. Government support continues to expand and combined public deficits will reach EUR 0.9 trillion, or 8.5% of GDP. Governmental guarantees have reached at least EUR1.4 trillion. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank’s balance sheet is swelling more quickly than during either the GFC or the euro area crisis (Chart I-7). Unsurprisingly, European shadow rates have collapsed to -7.6% and European financial conditions are the easiest they have been in 8 years. Chart I-6Will China's Rebound Matter? Chart I-7The ECB Is Aggressive More importantly, COVID-19 has broken the taboo of common bond issuance in Europe. Last week, Chancellor Merkel, President Macron and EC President von der Leyen hatched a plan to issue common bonds that will finance a EUR 750 billion recovery fund as part of the European Commission Multiannual Financial Framework. The EC will then allocate EUR 500 billion of grants (not loans) to EU nations as long as they adhere to European principles. The unified front by the three most senior European politicians reflects elevated support for the EU among all European nations and an understanding that economic ruin in the smaller nations could capsize the core nations (Chart I-8). Hence, fiscal risk-sharing will increasingly become the norm in Europe. Unsurprisingly, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Greek bond spreads all narrowed significantly following the announcement. Chart I-8The Forces That Bind Chart I-9Negative Rates Are Here, Sort Of US policymakers have abandoned any semblance of orthodoxy. The Fed’s programs announced so far have lifted its balance sheet by $2.9 trillion and could generate an expansion to $11 trillion by year-end. Moreover, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has highlighted that there is “no limit” to what the Fed can do with its unconventional policy apparatus. The nature of the US funding market makes negative rates very dangerous and, therefore, highly doubtful in that country. Nonetheless, the Fed is willing to buy more paper from the public and private sectors to push the shadow rate and real interest rates further into negative territory (Chart I-9). Moreover, the Federal government has already bumped up the deficit by $3 trillion and the House has passed another $3 trillion in spending. Senate Republicans will pass some of this program to protect themselves in November. According to BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy service, a total escalation in the federal deficit of $5 trillion (or 23% of 2020 GDP) is extremely likely this year. Chart I-10The Fed Is Monetizing The Deficit Combined fiscal and monetary policy in the US will have a more invigorating impact on the recovery than the measures passed in 2008-09. They represent a larger share of output than during the GFC (10.5% versus 6% of GDP for the government spending and 15.2% versus 8.3% for the Fed’s balance sheet expansion). Moreover, the Fed is buying a much greater percentage of the Treasury’s issuance than during the GFC (Chart I-10). Therefore, the Fed is much closer to monetizing government debt than it was 11 years ago. The combined monetary and fiscal easing should result in a larger fiscal multiplier because the private sector is not financing as much of the government’s largesse. Thus, the increase in the private sector’s savings rate should be short-lived and the current account deficit will widen to reflect the greater fiscal outlays. Low real rates and a larger balance-of-payments disequilibrium should weaken the dollar which will ease US financial conditions further. A Trough In Inflation Maintaining incredibly easy monetary and fiscal conditions as the economy reopens will lead to higher inflation when the labor market reaches full employment. Core CPI has collapsed to 1.4% on an annual basis and to -2.4% on a three-month annualized basis, the lowest reading on record. The breakdown of the CPI report is equally dreadful (Chart I-11). However, CPI understates inflation because the basket measured by the BLS includes many areas of commerce currently not frequented by consumers. Items actually purchased by households, such as food, have experienced accelerating inflation in recent months. Fiscal risk-sharing will increasingly become the norm in Europe. Beyond this technicality, the most important factor behind the anticipated structural uptick in inflation is a large debt load burdening the global economy. Total nonfinancial debt in the US stands at 254% of GDP, 262% in the euro area, 380% in Japan, 301% in Canada, 233% in Australia, 293% in Sweden and 194% in emerging markets (Chart I-12). Historically, the easiest method for policymakers to decrease the burden of liabilities is inflation; the current political climate increases the odds of that outcome. Chart I-11Weak Core Chart I-12Record Debt, Everywhere Households in the G-10 and emerging markets are angry. Growing inequalities, coupled with income immobility, have created dissatisfaction with the economic system (Chart I-13). Before the GFC, US households could gorge on debt to support their spending patterns, and inequalities went unnoticed. After the crisis revealed weakness in the household sector, banks tightened their credit standards and consumption slowed, constrained by a paltry expansion of the median household income. As a consequence, the American public increasingly supports left-wing economic policies (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Inequalities + Immobility = Anger Chart I-14The US Population's Shift To The Left COVID-19 is exacerbating the population’s discontent and highlighting economic disparities. The recession is hitting poor households in the US harder than the general population or highly skilled white-collar employees who can easily telecommute. Millennials, the largest demographic group in the US, are also irate. Their lifetime earnings were already lagging that of their parents because most millennials entered the job market in the aftermath of the GFC.1 Their income and balance sheet prospects were beginning to improve just as the pandemic shock struck. Finally, in response to the lockdowns and school closures caused by COVID-19, young families with children have to juggle permanent childcare and daily work demands from employers, resulting in a lack of separation between home and office.2 Economic populism will generate a negative supply shock, which will push up prices (Diagram I-1). BCA has espoused the theme of de-globalization since 20143 and COVID-19 will accelerate this trend. Firms do not want fragile supply chains that fall victim to random shocks; instead, they are looking to diversify their sources (Chart I-15). Additionally, workers and households want protection from foreign competition and perceived unfair trade practices. This sentiment is evident in a lack of trust toward China (Chart I-16). China-bashing will become a mainstay of American politics and rising tariffs will continue to increase the cost of doing business (Chart I-17). Last year’s Sino-US trade war was a precursor of events to come. Diagram I-1The Inflationary Impact Of A Stifled Supply Side Chart I-15COVID-19 Accelerates The Desire To Repatriate Production Chart I-16China As A Political Piñata Chart I-17The Cost Of Doing International Business Will Rise Chart I-18A Problem For Productivity The rate of capital stock accumulation does not bode well for the supply side of the economy. Productivity trails the path of capex, with a long time lag. The 10-year moving average of non-residential investment in the US bottomed three years ago. Its subsequent uptick should enhance average productivity. However, the growth of the real net capital stock per employee remains weak and will not strengthen because companies are curtailing spending in the recession. Moreover, the efficiency of the capital stock is well below its long-term average and probably will not mend if supply chains are made less efficient. These factors are negative for productivity and thus, the capacity to expand the supply side of the economy (Chart I-18). Finally, a significant share of capital stock is stranded and uneconomical. The airline industry is a good example. Going forward, regulations will keep the middle row seats empty. Fewer filled seats imply that the capital stock has lost significant value, which creates a negative supply shock for the industry. To break even, airlines will have to raise the price of fares. IATA estimates that fares will increase by 43%, 49% and 54% on North American, European and Asian routes, respectively (Table I-1). The same analysis can be applied to restaurants, hotels, cinemas, etc. – industries that will have to curtail their supplies and change their practices in response to COVID-19. Table I-1The Inflationary Impact Of Supply Cuts Chat I-19Pandemics Boost Wages While rising populism will hurt the supply side of the economy, it will also hike demand. Redistribution is an outcome of populism. Corporate tax hikes hurt rich households that receive more than 50% of their income from profits. High marginal tax rates on high earners will also curtail their disposable income. Shifting a bigger share of national income to the middle class will depress the savings rate and boost demand. It is estimated that the middle class’s marginal propensity to spend is 90% compared with 60% for richer households. In fact, in the past 40 years, the shift in income distribution has curtailed demand by 3% of GDP. Pandemics also increase real wages. Òscar Jordà, Sanjay Singh, and Alan Taylor demonstrated that European real wages accelerated following pandemics (Chart I-19). Fewer willing workers contributed to the climb in real wages by decreasing the supply of labor. Higher real wages are positive for consumption. China-bashing will become a mainstay of American politics and rising tariffs will continue to increase the cost of doing business. Populism will also put upward pressure on public spending. Governments globally and in the US are bailing out the private sector to an even larger extent than they did after the GFC. Discontent with expanding inequalities and the perceived lack of accountability of the corporate sector4 will push the government to be more involved in economic management than it was after 2008. Moreover, the post-2008 environment showed that austerity was negative for private sector income growth and the economic welfare of the middle class (Chart I-20). Thus, government spending and deficits as a share of GDP will be structurally higher for the coming decade. Higher deficits mechanically boost aggregate demand which is inflationary if the advance of aggregate supply is sluggish. Chat I-20Austerity Hurts Central banks will likely enable these inflationary dynamics. The Fed knows that it has missed its objective by a cumulative 4% since former Chairman Ben Bernanke set an official inflation target of 2% in 2012. Thus, it has lost credibility in its ability to generate 2% inflation, which is why the 10-year breakeven rate stands at 1.1% and not within the 2.3%-2.5% range that is consistent with its mandate. Moreover, the Fed is worried that the immediate deflationary impact of COVID-19 will further depress inflation expectations and reinforce low realized inflation. This logic partly explains why the Fed currently recommends more stimulus and the Federal Open Market Committee will be reluctant to remove accommodation anytime soon. Inflation will likely move toward 4-5% after the US economy regains full employment. Central banks may fall victim to growing populism. Both the Democrats and Republicans want control over the US Fed. If Congress changes the Fed’s mandate, there would be great consequences for inflation. Prior to the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, the Fed’s mandate was to foster full employment conditions without any explicit mention of inflation. Therefore, the Fed kept the unemployment rate well below NAIRU for most of the post-war period. This tight labor market was a key ingredient behind the inflationary outbreak of the 1970s. After the reform act explicitly imposed a price stability directive on top of the Fed’s employment mandate, the unemployment rate spent a much larger share of time above NAIRU, which contributed to the structural decline in inflation after 1982 (Chart I-21). Chat I-21The Fed's Mandate Matters Finally, demographics will also feed inflationary pressures. The global support ratio peaked in 2014 as the number of workers per dependent decreased due to ageing of the population in the West and China (Chart I-22). A declining support ratio depresses the growth of the supply side of the economy because the dependents continue to consume. In today’s world, dependents are retirees, who have higher healthcare spending needs. This healthcare spending will accrue additional government spending. Moreover, it will continue to push up healthcare inflation, which will contribute to higher overall inflation (Chart I-23). Chat I-22Demographics: From Deflation To Inflation Chat I-23Aging Will Feed Healthcare Inflation Bottom Line: COVID-19 has highlighted inequalities in the population and will accelerate a move toward populism that started four years ago. Consequently, the supply side of the economy will grow more slowly than it did in prior decades, while greater government interventions and redistributionist policies will boost aggregate demand. Additionally, monetary policy will probably stay easy for too long and demographic factors will compound the supply/demand mismatch. Inflation will likely move toward 4-5% after the US economy regains full employment, but will not surge to 1970s levels. Investment Implications Chat I-24Breakevens Will Listen To Commodities Extremely accommodative economic policy and a shift to higher inflation will dominate asset markets for the next five years or more. Breakevens in the G-10 are pricing in permanently subdued inflation for the coming decade, which creates a large re-pricing opportunity if inflation troughs when the labor market reaches full employment. Investors cannot wait for inflation to turn the corner to bet on higher breakevens. After the GFC, core CPI bottomed in October 2010, but US breakevens hit their floor at 0.15% in December 2008. Instead, a rebound in commodity prices and a turnaround in the global economic outlook may signal when investors should buy breakevens (Chart I-24). Chat I-25Deleterious US Balance Of Payments Dynamics A repricing of inflation expectations will depress real rates. Central banks want to see inflation expectations normalize towards 2.3%-2.5% before signaling an end to accommodation. Moreover, political pressures and high debt loads will likely loosen their reaction functions to higher breakeven. As a result, real interest rates will decline because nominal ones will not rise by as much as inflation expectations. This is exactly what central banks want to achieve because it will foster a stronger recovery. Our US fixed-income strategists favor TIPS over nominal Treasurys. The dollar will probably depreciate in the post-COVID-19 environment. As we wrote last month, the US is the most aggressive reflator among major economies. The twin deficit will expand while US real rates will remain depressed. This is very negative for the USD, especially in an environment where the US money supply is outpacing global money supply (Chart I-25).5 Additionally, Chinese reflation will stimulate global industrial production, which normally hurts the dollar. EM currencies are cheap enough that long-term investors should begin to bet on them (Chart I-26), especially if global inflation structurally shifts higher. Precious metals win from the combination of higher inflation, lower real rates and a weaker dollar. However, silver is more attractive than gold. Unlike the yellow metal, it trades at a discount to the long-term inflation trend (Chart I-27). Moreover, silver has more industrial uses, especially in the solar panel and computing areas. Thus, the post-COVID-19 recovery and the need to double up supply chains will boost industrial demand for silver and lift its price relative to gold. Our FX strategists recommend selling the gold-to-silver ratio.6 Chat I-26Cheap EM FX Chat I-27Silver Is The Superior Inflation Hedge Chat I-28Still Time To Favor Stocks Over Bonds Investors should favor stocks over bonds. This statement is more an indictment of the poor value of bonds and their lack of defense against rising inflation than a structural endorsement of stocks. The equity risk premium is elevated. To make this call, we need to account for the lack of stationarity of this variable and adjust for the expected growth rate of earnings. Nonetheless, once those factors are accounted for, our ERP indicator continues to flash a buy signal in favor of equities at the expense of bonds (Chart I-28). Moreover, bonds tend to underperform stocks when inflation trends up for a long time (Table I-2). Table I-2Rising Inflation Flatters Stocks Over Bonds Chart I-29Bonds Are Prohibitively Expensive In absolute terms, G-7 government bonds are also vulnerable, both tactically and structurally. They are overbought and currently trade at their greatest premium to fair value since Q4 2009 and Q1 1986, two periods followed by sharp rebounds in yields (Chart I-29). Moreover, the previous experience with QE programs shows that even if real rates diminish, the reflationary impact of aggressive monetary policy on breakeven rates is enough to increase nominal interest rates (Chart I-30). Additionally, as our European Investment Strategy team indicates, bond yields are close to their practical lower bound, which creates a negative skew to their return profile.7 This asymmetric return distribution destroys their ability to hedge equity risk going forward, making this asset class less appealing to investors. This problem is particularly salient in Europe and Japan. A lower dollar, which is highly reflationary for global growth, will likely catalyze the rise in yields. Chart I-30QE Will Lift Breakevens And Yields As long as real rates remain under downward pressure, the window to own stocks remains open, even if stocks continue to churn. Equities are expensive, but when yields are taken into consideration, their adjusted P/E is in line with the historical average (Chart I-31). Moreover, periods of weak growth associated with lower real interest rates can foster a large expansion in multiples (Chart I-32). Chart I-31Low Bond Yields Allow High Stock Multiples Chart I-32Multiples Will Rise Further As The Fed Floods The World With Low Rates Whether to have faith in stocks in absolute terms on a long-term basis is complicated by our view on inflation and populism. Strong inflation will increase nominal rates. Moreover, low productivity coupled with higher real wages, less-efficient supply chains and higher taxes will accentuate the margin compression that higher inflation typically creates. Thus, equities are expected to generate poor real returns over the long term, even if they beat bonds. Chart I-33Tech EPS Leadership Tech stocks are another structural problem for equities. Including Amazon, Google and Facebook, tech stocks account for 41% of the S&P 500’s market cap. As our US Equity Strategy service explains, wherever tech goes, so does the US market.8 Tech stocks are the current market darling. Today, the tech sector is the closest thing to a safe-haven in the mind of market participants, because a post-COVID-19 environment will favor tech spending (telecommuting, e-commerce, cloud computing, etc.). The problem for long-term investors is that this view is the most consensus view. Already, investors expect the tech sector to generate the highest EPS outperformance relative to the rest of the S&P 500 in more than 15 years (Chart I-33). Moreover, in a low-yield environment, investors are particularly willing to bid up the multiples of growth stocks such as tech equities because low interest rates result in muted discount factors for long-term cash flows. When should investors begin betting against the tech sector? Backed by a powerful narrative, tech stocks are evolving into a mania. Yet, contrarian investors understand, being too early to sell a mania can be deadly. Bond yields should not be relied on to signal an end to the bubble. During most of the 1990s, tech would outperform the market when Treasury yields declined. However, when the tech outperformance became manic, yields became irrelevant. From the fall of 1998 to the beginning of 2000, 10-year yields rose from 4.2% to 6.8%, yet the tech sector outperformed the S&P 500 by 127%. More recently, yields rose from 1.33% in the summer of 2016 to 3.25% in November 2018, but tech outperformed the broader market by 39%. Investors should favor stocks over bonds. Instead, higher inflation will be the key factor to end the tech sector’s infallibility. Since the 1990s, higher core inflation has led periods of tech underperformance by roughly six months. This relationship also held at the apex of the tech bubble in the second half of the 1990s (Chart I-34). Relative tech forward EPS suffers when core inflation rises, as the rest of the S&P 500 is more geared to higher nominal GDP growth. In essence, if nominal growth is less scarce, then the need to bid up growth stocks diminishes. Moreover, the dollar will likely be the first early signal because it leads nominal GDP. As a result, a weak dollar leads to a contraction in tech relative multiples by approximately 9 months (Chart I-35). Chart I-34Tech Hates Inflation... Chart I-35...And A Soft Dollar We recommend long-term investors shift their portfolios toward industrial equities when inflation turns the corner. As a corollary, the low exposure of European and Japanese stocks to the tech sector suggests these cheap bourses will finally reverse their more-than-a-decade-long underperformance at the same time. This strategy means that even if the S&P 500 generates negative real returns during the coming decade, investors could still eke out positive returns from their stock holdings. Higher inflation will be the key factor to end the tech sector’s infallibility. Chart I-36The Time For Commodities Is Coming Back Finally, commodities plays are also set to shine in the coming decade. Commodities are very cheap and oversold relative to stocks (Chart I-36). Commodities outperform equities in an environment where inflation rises, real rates decline and the dollar depreciates. Consequently, materials and energy stocks may be winners. As a corollary, Latin American and Australian equities should also reverse their decade-long underperformance when inflation and the dollar turn the corner. This month's Section II Special Report is an in depth study of the Spanish Flu pandemic, written by our colleague Amr Hanafy and also published in BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation service. Amr thoroughly analyses the evolution of the 100-year old pandemic and which measures mattered most to contain the virus and allow a return to economic normality. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 28, 2020 Next Report: June 25, 2020 II. Lessons From The Spanish Flu What Can 1918/1919 Teach Us About COVID-19? “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana – 1905 Chart II-1Coronavirus: As Contagious But Not As Deadly As Spanish Flu Today’s economy is very different to that of 100 years ago. Many countries then were in the middle of World War I (which ended in November 1918). The characteristics of the Spanish Flu which struck the world in 1918 and 1919 were also different to this year’s pandemic. COVID-19 is almost as contagious as the Spanish Flu, but it is much less deadly (Chart II-1). Healthcare systems and treatments today are far more advanced than those of a century ago: many people who caught Spanish flu died of complications caused by bacterial pneumonia, given the absence of antibiotics. Influenza viruses tend to mutate rapidly: the influenza virus in 1918 first mutated to become far more virulent in its second wave, and then to become much milder. Coronaviruses have a “proofreading” capacity and mutate less easily.9 Nevertheless, an analysis of the pandemic of 100 years ago provides a number of insights into the current crisis, particularly now that policymakers are easing social-distancing rules to help the economy, even at the risk of more cases and deaths. Among the lessons of 1918-1919: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) do lower mortality rates. The speed at which NPIs are implemented and the period of implementation are as important as the number of measures taken. Removing or relaxing measures too early can lead to a renewed rise in mortality rates. It is hard to compare current fiscal and monetary policies to those taken during the 1918 pandemic, since policy in both areas was already easy before the pandemic as a result of the world war. However, a severe pandemic would certainly call for a wartime-like fiscal and monetary response. The economy was negatively impacted by the pandemic in 1918-19 but, despite the shock to industrial activity and employment, the economy subsequently rebounded quickly, in a V-shaped recovery. Introduction Predicting how the economy will react to the COVID-19 pandemic is hard. Governments and policymakers face multiple uncertainties: How effective are different containment measures? Will cases and deaths rebound quickly if lockdown measures are eased? When will the coronavirus disappear? When will a vaccine be ready? With an event unprecedented in the experience of anyone alive today, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from history. For this Special Report, we attempt to draw some parallels between the current situation and the 1918-19 Spanish flu. We focus on the different containment efforts implemented, the role that fiscal and monetary policies played, the impact on markets and the economy, and whether history can throw any light on how the COVID-19 crisis might pan out. The 1918 Spanish Flu Chart II-2The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most lethal in modern history. Soldiers returning from World War I helped spread the pandemic across the globe. The first recorded case is believed to have been in an army camp in Kansas. While there is no official count, researchers estimate that about 500 million people contracted the virus globally, with a mortality rate of between 5% and 10%. The pandemic occurred over three waves in 1918 and 1919 – the first in the spring of 1918, the second (and most deadly) in the fall of 1918, and the third in spring 1919 (Chart II-2). In the US alone, official data estimate that around 500,000 deaths (or over 25% of all deaths) in 1918 and 1919 were caused by pneumonia and influenza.10 The pandemic moved swiftly to Europe and reached Asia by mid-1918, but became more lethal only towards the end of the year (Map II-1).11 Map II-1The Spread Of Influenza Through Europe Initially, scientists were puzzled by the origin of the influenza and its biology. It was not until a decade later, in the early 1930s, that Richard Shope isolated the particular influenza virus from infected pigs, confirming that a virus caused the Spanish Flu, not a bacterium as most had thought. Many of those who caught this strain of influenza died as a result of their lungs filling with fluid in a severe form of pneumonia. In reporting death rates, then, it is considered best practice to include deaths from both influenza and pneumonia. The first wave had almost all the hallmarks of a seasonal flu, albeit of a highly contagious strain. Symptoms were similar and mortality rates were only slightly higher than a normal influenza. The first wave went largely unnoticed given that deaths from pneumonia were common then. US public health reports show that the disease received little attention until it reappeared in a more severe form in Boston in September 1918.12 Most countries did not begin investigating and reporting cases until the second wave was underway (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Most Countries Began Reporting Only When The Second Wave Hit This second wave – which was more lethal because the virus had mutated – had a unique characteristic. Unlike the typical influenza mortality curve – which is usually “U” shaped, affecting mainly the very young and elderly – the 1918 influenza strain had a “W”-shaped mortality curve – impacting young adults as well as old people (Chart II-4). This pattern was evident in all three waves, but most pronounced during the second wave. The reason for this was that the infection caused by the influenza became hyperactive, producing a “cytokine storm” – when mediators secreted from the immune system result in severe inflammation.13 Simply put, as the virus became virulent, the body’s immune system overworked to fight it. Younger people, with strong immune systems, suffered most from this phenomenon. Chart II-4A Unique Characteristic: Impacting Younger Adults By the summer of 1919, the pandemic was over, since those who had been infected had either died or recovered, therefore developing immunity. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess if “herd immunity” was achieved. However, some historical accounts and research – particularly for army groups in the US and the UK – suggest that those exposed to the disease in the first mild wave were not affected during the second more severe wave.14 The failure to define the causative pathogen at the time made development of a vaccine impossible. Nevertheless, some treatments and remedies showed modest success. These varied from using a serum – obtained from people who had recovered, who therefore had antibodies against the disease – to simple symptomatic drugs and various oils and herbs. The Effectiveness Of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) Chart II-5Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough What we today call “social distancing” showed positive effects during the 1918-19 pandemic. These included measures very similar to those applied today: school closures, isolation and quarantines, bans on some sorts of public gatherings, and more. However, there were few travel bans. The number of passengers carried during the months of the pandemic did noticeably decline though (Chart II-5). Table II-1, based on research by Hatchett, Mecher and Lipsitch, breaks down NPIs by type for 17 major US cities. Most cities implemented a wide range of interventions. But it was not only the type of NPIs implemented that made a difference, but also the speed and length of implementation. Further research by Markel, Lipman and Navarro based on 43 US cities shows that the median number of days between the first reported influenza case and the first NPI implementation was over two weeks. The median period during which various NPIs were implemented was about six weeks (Table II-2). Table II-1Measures Applied Then Are Very Similar To Those Applied Today Table II-2NPIs Were Implemented Only For Short Periods Markel, Lipman and Navarro's findings show that a rapid public-health response was an important factor in reducing the mortality rate by slowing the rate of infection, what we now refer to as “flattening the curve.” There were major differences in cities’ policies: both the speed at which they implement NPIs, and the length of the implementation period. Chart II-6 shows that: Cities that acted quickly to implement NPIs slowed the rate of infections and deaths (Chart II-6, panel 1) Cities that acted quickly had lower mortality rates from influenza and pneumonia (Chart II-6, panel 2) Cities that implemented NPIs for longer periods had fewer deaths (Chart II-6, panel 3) Chart II-7 quantifies the number of NPIs taken, the time it took to implement the measures, and the length of NPIs to gauge policy strictness. Cities with stricter enforcement had lower death rates than those with laxer measures. Chart II-6Fast Response And Longer Implementation Led To Fewer Deaths... Chart II-7...So Did Policy Strictness For example, Kansas City, less than a week after its first reported case, had implemented quarantine and isolation measures. By the second week, schools, churches, and other entertainment facilities closed. Schools reopened a month later (in early November) but quickly shut again until early January 1919. While we do not have definitive dates on when each NPI was lifted, some sort of protective measures in Kansas City were in place for almost 170 days. By contrast, Philadelphia, one of the cities hardest hit by Spanish Flu, took more than a month to implement any measures. Its tardiness meant that it reached a peak mortality rate much more quickly: in 13 days compared to 31 days for Kansas City. Even after the first reported case, the Liberty Loans Parade was still held on September 28, 1918 – with the knowledge that hundreds of thousands of spectators might be vulnerable to infection.15,16 It was not until a few days later that institutions were closed and a ban on public gatherings was imposed. Many other cities also held a Liberty Loans Parade, including Pittsburgh and Washington DC, but Philadelphia’s was the deadliest. Studies also show that relaxing interventions too early could be as damaging as implementing them too late. St. Louis, for example, was quick to lift restrictions and suffered particularly badly in the second wave as a result. It later reinstated NPIs up until end of February 1919. Other cities that eased restrictions too early (San Francisco and Minneapolis, for example) also suffered from a second swift, albeit milder, increase in weekly excess death rates from pneumonia and influenza (Chart II-8). Chart II-8Relaxing Lockdown Measures Too Early Can Lead To A Second Rise In Deaths... Chart II-9...And So Can Highly Effective Measures Of course, NPIs cannot be implemented indefinitely. A recent research paper by Bootsma and Ferguson raises the point that suppressing a pandemic may not be the best strategy because it just leaves some people susceptible to infection later. They argue that highly effective social distancing measures, which allow a susceptible pool of people to reintegrate into society when the measures are lifted, are likely to lead to a resurgence in infections and fatalities in a second peak (Chart II-9).17 They suggest an optimal level of control measures to reduce R (the infection rate) to a value that makes a significant portion of the population immune once measures are lifted. The Impact Of The Spanish Flu On The Economy And Markets How did the Spanish Flu pandemic affect the economy? Many pandemic researchers ignore the official recession identified by the NBER during the months of the pandemic (between August 1918 and March 1919).18 The reason is that most of the evidence indicates that the economic effects of the 1918-19 pandemic were short-term and relatively mild.19 Disentangling drivers of the economy is, indeed, tricky given that WW1 ended in November 1918. However, it is easy to underestimate the negative impact of the pandemic since the war had such a big impact on the economy, as well as investor and public sentiment. Various research papers support the fact that, while the pandemic did indeed have an adverse effect on the economy, NPIs did not just depress mortality rates, but also sped the post-pandemic economic recovery.20 Research by Correia, Sergio, and Luck showed that the areas most severely affected by the pandemic saw a sharp and persistent decline in real economic activity, whereas cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively, experienced a relative increase in economic activity post the pandemic.21 Their findings are based on the increase in manufacturing employment after the pandemic compared to before it (1919 versus 1914). However, note that the rise of manufacturing payrolls in 1919 was high everywhere given the return of soldiers post-WWI. The researchers also note that those cities hardest hit by the pandemic also saw a negative impact on manufacturing activity, the stock of durable goods, and bank assets. Chart II-10Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary Because Spanish flu disproportionately killed younger adults, many families lost their breadwinner. In economic terms, this implies both a negative supply shock and negative demand shock. If fewer employees are available to produce a certain good, supply will fall. The same reduction in employment also implies reduced income and therefore lower purchasing power. Both cases will result in a decrease in output. However, the change in prices depends on the decline of supply relative to demand. In 1918-19, the impact was disinflationary: demand declined by more than supply, and both spending and consumer prices fell during the pandemic (Chart II-10). US factory employment fell by over 8% between March 1918 and March 1919 – the period from the beginning of the first wave until the end of the second wave. It is important to note, however, that few businesses went bankrupt during the pandemic years (Chart II-11). Additionally, the November 1918 Federal Reserve Bulletin highlighted that many cities, including New York, Kansas City, and Richmond, experienced a shortage of labor due to the influenza.22 Factory employment in New York fell by over 10% during this period. The link between the labor shortages and the decline in industrial production is unclear. Industrial activity in the US peaked just before the second wave, contracting by over 20% during the second wave (Chart II-12). Various industries reported disruptions: automobile production fell by 67%, anthracite coal production and shipments fell by around 45%, and railroad freight revenues declined by over seven billion ton-miles (Chart II-12, panels 2, 3 & 4). However, some of this decline is attributed to falling defense production after the war. Chart II-11Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners Chart II-12Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly Chart II-13The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic Chart II-14Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started The equity market moved in a broad range in 1915-1919 and fell sharply only ahead of the 1920 recession (Chart II-13). Seemingly, stock market participants were more focused on the war than the pandemic. The lack of reporting of the pandemic could have contributed to this: newspapers were encouraged to avoid carrying bad news for reasons of patriotism and did not widely cover the pandemic until late 1918.23 The Federal Reserve played an active role in funding the government’s spending on the war, and so monetary policy was very easy during the pandemic – but for other reasons. The Fed used its position as a lender to the banking system to facilitate war bond sales.16 Interest rates were cut in 1914 and 1915 even before the US entered the war. The US economy had been in recession between January 1913 and December 1914. Policy rates remained low throughout 1916 and 1917 and slightly rose in 1918 and 1919. It was not until 1920 that Federal Reserve Bank System tightened policy rapidly to choke off inflation, which accelerated to over 20% in mid-1920 – rising inflation being a common post-war phenomenon (Chart II-14). The Lessons Of 1918-19 For The Coronavirus Pandemic Non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue to be implemented until a vaccine, effective therapeutic drugs, or mass testing is available. Relaxing measures prematurely is as damaging as a tardy reaction to the pandemic. Reacting quickly and imposing multiple measures for longer periods not only reduces mortality rates, but also improves economic outcomes post-crisis. The economy suffers in the short-term: supply and demand shocks lead to lower output. The demand shock however is larger leading to lower prices and disinflationary pressures, at least during and immediately after the pandemic. Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we maintained a positive disposition toward stocks, especially at the expense of government bonds. The global economy may be in the midst of its most severe contraction since the Great Depression, but betting against stocks is too dangerous when fiscal and monetary policy are both as easy as they are today. In essence, don’t fight the Fed. This view remains in place, even if the short-term risk/reward ratio for holding stocks is deteriorating. On a cyclical basis, the same factors that made us willing buyers of stocks remain broadly in place. Stocks are not as cheap as they were in late March, but monetary conditions have only eased further as real interest rates weakened. Additionally, our Speculation Indicator has eased, which indicates that contrary to many commentators’ perceptions, speculation is not rampant. Confirming this intuition, the equity risk premium remains elevated (even when one takes into account its lack of stationarity) and expected growth rates of earnings are still very low. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator is finally flashing a strong buy signal. Tactically, equities are still overbought. We have had four 5% or more corrections since March 23. More of them are in the cards. However, the most likely outcome for the S&P 500 this summer is a churning pattern, not a major downward move below 2700. The median stock is still 26% below its August 2018 low and only a fraction of equities on the NYSE trade above their 30-week moving average. These indicators do not scream that a major correction is on the horizon, especially when policy is as accommodative as it is today. We continue to recommend investors take advantage of the supportive backdrop for stocks by buying equities relative to bonds. In contrast to global bourses, government bonds are still massively overbought on a cyclical basis and trading at their largest premium to fair value since Q4 2008 and late 1985. Additionally, the vast sums of both monetary and fiscal stimulus injected in the economy should lift inflation expectations and thus, bond yields. The yield curve is therefore slated to steepen further. Since we last published, the dollar has not meaningfully depreciated, but the DXY is trying to breakdown while our composite technical indicator is making lower highs. It is too early to gauge whether the recent rebound in the IDR, the MXN, or the ZAR is anything more than an oversold bounce, but if it were to continue, it would indicate that the expensive greenback is starting to buckle under the weight of the quickly expanding twin deficit. The widening in the current account deficit that will result from extraordinarily loose fiscal policy means that the large increase in money supply by the Fed will leak out of the US economy. This process is highly bearish for the dollar. Ultimately, the timing of the dollar’s weakness will all boil down to global growth. As signs are building up that global growth is bottoming, odds are rising that the dollar will finally breakdown. Get ready for a meaningful downward move over the coming months. Finally, commodities seem to be gaining traction. The Continuous Commodity Index’s A/D line is quickly moving up and our Composite Technical Indicator is quickly rising from extremely oversold levels. Oil will hold the key for the broad complex. Oil supply has started to adjust lower and oil demand is set to improve starting June/July as the global economy re-opens, fueled with massive amounts of stimulus. As a result, inventories should start to meaningfully decline this summer, which will support the recent recovery in oil prices. If oil can rebound further, industrial commodities will follow. Finally, gold is a mixed bag in the near term. The dollar is set to weaken significantly and inflation breakevens to move higher, which will mitigate the negative impact of declining risk aversion. Silver is a superior play to gold as it will benefit from a recovery in global growth. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Reid Cramer et al., The Emerging Millennial Wealth Gap, Divergent Trajectories, Weak Balance Sheets, and Implications for Social Policy, New America, Oct 2019. 2 https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-normal-amid-coronavirus-working-from-home-while-schooling-the-kids-11584437400 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient," dated June 27, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "May 2020," dated April 30, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "A Few Trades Amidst A Pandemic," dated May 22, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "European Investors Left Defenceless," dated May 21, 2020, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report "Debunking Earnings," dated May 19, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see the Q&A with immunologist and Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty, published by BCA Research April 1st 2020: BCA Research Special Report, “Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers,” available at bcaresearch.com 10 Please see “Leading Cause of Death, 1990-1998,” CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 Please see Ansart S, Pelat C, Boelle PY, Carrat F, Flahault A, Valleron AJ, “Mortality burden of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in Europe,” NCBI. 12 Please see Public Health Report, vol. 34, No. 38, Sept. 19, 1919. 13 Please see Qiang Liu, Yuan-hong Zhou, Zhan-qiu Yang Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan; 13(1): 3–10. 14 Please see Shope, R. (1958) Public Health Rep. 73, 165–178. 15 The Liberty Loans Parade was intended to promote the sale of government bonds to pay for World War One. 16 Please see Hatchett RJ, Mecher CE, Lipsitch M (2007) "Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic,"PNAS 104: 7582–7587. 17 Please see Bootsma M, Ferguson N, “The Effect Of Public Health Measures On The 1918 Influenza Pandemic In U.S. Cities,” PNAS (2007). 18 Please see https://www.nber.org/cycles.html 19 Please see https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-development/res…12 Please see https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/03/fight-the-pandemic-save-the-economy-lessons-from-the-1918-flu.html. 20 Please see Correia, Sergio and Luck, Stephan and Verner, Emil, Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu (March 30, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3561560 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3561560. 21 Please see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935- and Federal Reserve Board, 1914-1935. "November 1918," Federal Reserve Bulletin (November 1918). 22 Please see https://newrepublic.com/article/157094/americas-newspapers-covered-pandemic. 23 Please see https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_role_during_wwi.
Highlights At 50% Trump’s reelection odds are too high, flagging a risk to equity markets of policy discontinuity. The virus, unemployment, and wages will weigh on him over the year. Trump’s polling is firm because the crisis is still acute. If it remains firm when the dust settles then we will reassess. Trump is competitive in swing states, but not clearly leading. The stock market, as a single variable, is an excellent gauge of reelection odds for ruling parties in US elections going back to 1896. It gives Trump a 16% chance as of today. This is too low, but unemployment and wages also suggest he is an underdog. Michelle Obama and Justin Amash are potential spoilers flying under the radar. The Senate will follow the White House, signaling an understated risk of a total policy reversal and hard left turn in US policy. Massive stimulus motivates our long run risk-on trades: cyber security, infrastructure, Fed-backed corporate bonds, and China reflation plays. Europe and European industrials stand to benefit on a relative basis if Biden wins. Feature Chart 1Recent Poll Shows Trump Leads In Swing States President Donald Trump’s reelection bid is holding up better than we expected so far this year. Trump leads former Vice President Joe Biden in swing states by 52% to 45%, according to a poll taken by CNN from May 7-10 (Chart 1). Our poll of polls below are not as supportive, but this is a strong sign of competitiveness for a sitting president in the midst of a pandemic, recession, social unrest, and controversy over reopening the economy. Naturally several clients have pushed back against our decision to downgrade Trump’s chances of victory from 55% to 35% back in March. We don’t mind the heat – we took the heat for two years while we favored Trump for reelection. Moreover we are not dogmatic. If the facts change, we will change our minds. So far, we are sticking to our view. It is a view that implies risk to corporate earnings and hence supports a tactically bearish or short positioning on the S&P 500. If Trump maintains and builds on his popular support, particularly by August when the Republican and Democratic parties hold their conventions, then we will upgrade his odds, assuming that the economy is improving and the pandemic is abating. At present the market is underrating the challenges facing the president, as we outline in this report. Reopening Poses Downside Risks To Trump Chart 2US Follows The Swedes So far reopening is helping Trump, but it poses a major risk to him down the line this year. The election is five months away – a world away. The new “whistleblower’s complaint” against the Trump administration argues that America faces its “darkest winter in modern history” due to the impending second wave of the virus. However, we rely on the testimony of Anthony Fauci to the Senate this week. Fauci said that states can continue to reopen as long as they adhere to federal guidelines that require 14 days of declining cases in the first phase. June 1 is an acceptable time for most states to open. The trajectory of US deaths per million is deviating from the path of the European Union and moving toward the path charted by Sweden. Swedes have adhered strictly to looser guidelines; Americans have adhered loosely to stricter guidelines. The US death count per million people, a lagging indicator, will rise or at least remain flat in the coming months if states and individuals are not vigilant and compliant (Chart 2). One should assume, however, that governments and individuals will alter their behavior for the sake of self-preservation and in light of new information. Interior American states – those not included in the “COVID confederacy” of western and eastern Democratic states – have seen a tentative drop in deaths (Charts 3A & 3B). While looser restrictions will lead to higher deaths than otherwise, it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be unmanageable for the health system. Chart 3AInterior US Sees Rising COVID Cases … Chart 3B… And Deaths Could Rise From Here From an Electoral College perspective – an absurd way to look at a pandemic, but such are the times – the red states will see an accelerating case count and death toll if they do not actively manage the reopening process (Charts 4A & 4B). This is a political liability. Chart 4ARed States Stable In Case Count … Chart 4B… Yet Deaths Could Tick Up Expectations that Trump is a slam dunk for reelection neglect the obvious fact that interior states shut down before they suffered the full brunt of the pandemic. If new outbreaks spiral out of control, it will have a negative political ramification for those pushing for a quick reopening. That will eventually accrue to the president, with whom the buck stops. A resurgence of infections, whether this summer or this fall, will be met with better preparedness, in terms of non-pharmaceutical intervention (social distancing) and likely pharmaceutical intervention as well (anti-virals, probably not yet a vaccine). But the virus is now underrated as a political risk since President Trump is fully identified with the decision to “liberate” the states yet his polls are firm and online gamblers on sites like PredictIt are giving him a roughly 50% chance of winning reelection. Bottom Line: If outbreaks spiral out of control in swing states then the incumbent president and ruling party will be punished. The evolution of cases and deaths is critical in the near term. Uncertainty over reopening, and understated risks of political change, call for a higher equity risk premium and hence more downside for share prices. Trump’s Approval Gains Are Slight Americans are hitting “peak polarization” this year and the coming years. It is well known that partisanship is affecting voters’ views on objective reality. But notice that all consumers are getting more optimistic about the future, not just Republicans (Chart 5). Chart 5Sentiment Is Polarized But Everyone Sees Improvements On Horizon Uncertainty over reopening and understated risks of political change, call for more downside for share prices. There is a clear bifurcation in voter’s opinions of Trump’s handling of the economy as against the pandemic. Voters approve less and less of his pandemic response; they disapprove less and less of his handling of the economy (Charts 6A & 6B). Chart 6ATrump’s Approval Falling On COVID-19 … Chart 6BYet Supported On Economy Chart 7Voters Wary Of Reopening Too Fast The implication is that if the economy is the single biggest issue in November, then Trump made the right electoral call to reopen fast and focus on presiding over the biggest stimulus in history. Yet a clear majority feels the country is lifting restrictions too quickly. Only a slight majority of Republicans agree with him (Chart 7). Recent Emerson and Marist polls reinforce the point that the economy is the most important issue. Biden is leading Trump on the coronavirus – and notably leading older voters on both issues (Charts 8A & 8B). Chart 8AVoters Still Most Concerned About The Economy Chart 8BYet One Poll Says Biden Gaining Lead On Both Economy And Pandemic Trump’s national approval rating remains underwater, but it has gradually converged with the average of American presidents (Chart 9). A major incident of social unrest – which is possible given active protest movements amid high polarization – would hurt him. The lowest point in his approval rating occurred in August 2017 during the Charlottesville, Virginia protests against taking down a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee that turned bloody. Incidents of social unrest will be exploited by both political extremes, but a rise in unrest in general would cause anxiety among middle-of-the-road voters and tend to hurt the ruling party. Chart 9Trump Rising – But Social Unrest A Risk Chart 10Trump Not Yet Clearly On Obama Trajectory Chart 11Trump Gaining Among Hispanics, But Slight Dip Among Elderly Comparing Trump’s approval rating to his immediate predecessors is more realistic because general presidential approval has declined over time due to polarization. On this front, Trump is falling short of President Obama at this stage in 2012. Of course, he could still rally in the lead-up to the campaign, as is typical of sitting presidents (Chart 10). An important caveat is that Trump is making headway in unexpected voting groups. His support is surging among Hispanics, who are disproportionately hurt by economic lockdowns due to the sectoral concentration of their labor, yet less likely to die of COVID-19 (most likely because they are a younger cohort relative to blacks and whites). Moreover this trend began before the coronavirus and coincides with a rise in approval among electorally vital Midwesterners, as well as young people (Chart 11). The implication is that Democrats’ decision to impeach Trump has helped him, just as we argued it would last year, and yet COVID-19 has not reversed his gains. Older people, as mentioned, are a very important exception. They are the critical voting bloc and most susceptible to the virus. They are tentatively becoming less approving of the president. This is according to this Gallup poll, to the CNN poll highlighted at the top of this report, and the aforementioned poll in Chart 8 above. The right-leaning pollster Rasmussen – a proxy for those trying to avoid anti-Trump skews in polling due to any self-censorship or methodological biases – shows that Trump’s approval rating bottomed at a slightly lower level than it did when the Zelensky call appeared last fall, but not as low as during the market plunge and political controversies of late 2018 (Chart 12). This is good news for Trump. Chart 12Trump Reviving From Virus Hit, Shows Rasmussen Polling Chart 13Trump’s Polling Bounce Small Relative To Peers Yet Trump’s polling “bounce,” as the nation rallies around his leadership amid crisis, is small at two percentage points. Other leaders have gotten bigger boosts (Chart 13). More importantly, Trump’s polling bounce is miniscule compared to the average bounce for American presidents during crises that assail the US from the outside (Table 1). Table 1Trump’s Crisis Polling Bounce Compared To Previous Presidential Bounces Bottom Line: Trump is holding up surprisingly well with voters amid the crisis given his past polling. This is an important signal. But it is important to see if it is sustained after the acute phase passes. His polling gains are small relative to US history and contemporary peers. His consistent strong marks on the economy only matter if the economy is the chief issue of the election, but the pandemic creates a major risk that this election could be one of the unusual elections in which a non-economic issue is the most salient. Trump Isn’t Winning In Head-To-Head Polls Earlier we highlighted Trump’s lead in swing states, according to the latest CNN poll. But in our aggregate of polls, Biden is leading in all swing states except Ohio (Chart 14A). Chart 14ABiden Leads Swing State Poll-Of-Polls Except Ohio The lead is within the margin of error in Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona, meaning the candidates are effectively tied. But that reflects negatively on the sitting president, since incumbents have an advantage over challengers, and Biden is widely known to be a deeply flawed challenger. Trump has taken a big hit in head-to-head polls in critical states. Moreover the year-to-date change in these head-to-head polls suggests that Trump has taken a big hit in critical states: Florida, Arizona, and even Ohio, which should be rock solid for him (Chart 14B). Chart 14BTrump Suffered Blow From Virus In Swing State Poll-Of-Polls The consolation for Trump is that Biden, “Sleepy Joe in the basement,” who is fending off mounting accusations of sexual misconduct against Tara Reade, has either lost ground or made negligible gains. Clients often tell us they do not trust the polls. But post-WWII history shows that polls are fairly accurate and more accurate for sitting presidents than their challengers. Incumbents have averaged 55% of the popular vote, versus 49% for challengers, a clear indication of the incumbent advantage (Chart 15A). Chart 15ASitting Presidents Usually Win The Popular Vote Voter intentions in October and November ahead of the election are usually only 0.8% lower than the sitting president’s actual vote share. However, the same polls tend to underrate challengers by 2.2% (Chart 15B). Chart 15BPolling Is Accurate – Yet Underrates Challengers More Than Incumbent Presidents Chart 16Trump’s Favorability Less Negative, Biden’s Turns Negative Favorability polling is of limited relevance, given that the candidates for president in 2016 and 2020 are the least favorable of all politicians. Polarization makes it so that being hated by the other party is an asset. But it is notable that Trump’s net favorability is not half as negative as it was in 2016, and that he is tied with Biden, whereas Biden has fallen a great distance since the last economic crisis, when he had greater favorability than Barack Obama (Chart 16). Bottom Line: The candidates are virtually tied in the swing states and Biden’s slight lead in our poll-of-polls has not benefited from the crisis. Incumbents tend to outperform their polling by one point, but challengers tend to outperform by two. Biden is manifestly a weak challenger but taking all the evidence together he has a slight lead at present in the swing states. Stock Market And Recession Are Worrisome For Trump Table 2Trump’s Odds 50% At Most Based On Historic Recession/Election Probabilities US elections are a referendum on the incumbent party. Recessions tend to destroy sitting presidents. This is true, but there are important exceptions. A close look at the odds of sitting presidents, as well as sitting parties, and the timing of when the economy resumes expansion, suggests that Trump’s odds of winning are at best 50/50 (Table 2). Our own quantitative election model shows the same thing, and has hovered at 51% all along, although it will flip key states against him once state-level data are updated for the collapse in the economy. Fernando Crupi, of BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy, shows what a simple and straightforward look at the S&P 500 implies about Trump’s odds. Together we looked at two variables in elections since 1896: the market performance year to date on October 31 of the election year, and the result of the election for the incumbent party, i.e. victory if the incumbent party is reelected or loss if the new president hails from the opposing party. To estimate the probability of victory we use a logistic model, a widely used statistical tool designed to predict probabilities which can only range between zero and one, never hitting them.1 It is virtually impossible for an election outcome to be certain. The results are as follows: The year-to-date performance of the S&P 500 is a statistically significant variable (at the 5% level) in determining the fate of an incumbent party and has a positive correlation with it. Out of 31 elections, the model correctly predicted the outcome of 77% of the elections in-sample. While this is far from perfect it is remarkable given that we are using the market performance as the only explanatory variable. The effect of an additional percentage point of stock market performance is not linear on the incumbent party’s re-election odds, so two numbers are worthwhile expressing. At the mean S&P 500 YTD performance of the 31 elections, an additional percentage point increase in the market would increase the incumbent party’s odds of winning by 2.8 percentage points, and a decrease would decrease it by the same. By comparison, for all possible values of market performance, the average effect of an additional percentage point increase (or decrease) of the market would increase (or decrease) the probability of an incumbent party re-election by 2.1 percentage points. Chart 17 helps to visualize the model – for any percentage of market performance YTD as of October 31, it shows Trump’s odds of reelection this fall. With the S&P down by 13% this year, Trump’s odds would be 16%. A 10ppt recuperation in the S&P 500 from here would increase his chances to 40% and a 15ppt recuperation would bring him to 55%. Chart 17The Stock Market Says Trump’s Reelection Odds Are 16% Obviously the stock market is likely to rally or sell off for various reasons, for instance, if it thinks that the economy will get worse and the incumbent will lose. A change of government introduces policy uncertainty. Our own electoral model, explained in previous reports, is more robust than this back-of-the-envelope experiment and produces a more favorable outcome for Trump. So while the S&P may be low-balling Trump at 16%, we have no basis either in history or in formal modeling to give him more than a 50% chance as things stand today. And subjectively we think 50% is too high. Presidential approval follows the unemployment rate in the final innings of the campaign. Trump is doomed by this measure. Lastly, to reiterate and update key points we have made in the past: Presidential approval tends to follow the unemployment rate in the final innings of the campaign. Trump is obviously doomed by this measure, as it is the net change over time that matters most (Charts 18A & 18B). Chart 18AUnemployment Rate A Huge Chart 18B… And Tends To Predict Voter turnout is one of the hardest variables to predict, but it follows pretty closely with the change in unemployment over the preceding four years in the swing states. High turnout amid a deep recession is negative for the incumbent president (Chart 19). Chart 19Surge In Unemployment Positive For Turnout, Yet Hurts Incumbent Our subjective probability of reelection, at 35% as of March 24, holds up pretty well in this light. We will adjust this as new evidence comes to light. Bottom Line: To claim that Trump’s odds of reelection are substantially higher than 50% is to argue that “this time is different.” The market should keep falling from its April 29 peak around 2950 not only because of uncertainty about the pandemic and economy but also because of the risk that Trump’s troubles lead to market-negative outcomes. Michelle And Justin As Spoilers With multiple overlapping crises and high polarization, we have highlighted the high potential for extreme events, black swans, and spoilers. These do not include any move of the election date – that would make Trump look weak and would require House Democrats to agree to change a key 1845 statute.2 But they include almost everything else: violent incidents, disputes over voting methods amid the virus, vote recounts, judicial interventions, Electoral College irregularities, congressional intercession, refusals to concede, you name it. We would not be surprised if the Supreme Court took an opportunity currently before it to rule in favor of punishments against “faithless electors” or even to prohibit electors from voting contrary to the popular will in general. On a much less important note, we would also not be surprised if the high court enables President Trump’s personal accounts and tax records to be subpoenaed. Another possible spoiler: Michelle Obama. Chart 20Michelle Obama Objective Best Pick For Vice President Biden is currently mulling his pick for the vice presidential candidate. None of the candidates are magical: Senator Amy Klobuchar makes the most sense of the conventional options as she could improve his standing among women, Midwesterners, white voters, and suburbanites. She hails from Minnesota, he from Pennsylvania, creating a potential pincer movement in the Electoral College. Klobuchar’s favorability is stronger than that of Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, neither of whom can help bring a swing state (Chart 20).3 Yet Warren is well known and could help mend the gap with the progressive wing of the party. Picking her highlights the understated risk to the market of a progressive turn in Biden’s platform. Stacey Abrams could help bring over the black vote but she is sorely lacking in credentials and is reminiscent of the GOP’s desperate and failed bid to reconnect with its base by nominating Sarah Palin in 2008. The obvious choice is Michelle Obama. She has the highest favorability by far, including when her detractors are netted out. She solidifies Biden’s connection with Barack Obama, helps energize progressives, women, and minorities who are needed to turn out. And her power base is in the Midwest. One little problem … Michelle has repeatedly said she does not wish to run. Others have confirmed she has no interest. And a Machiavellian political adviser could advise her to wait until later when there is no incumbent president and then run directly for the top job, free of Biden’s baggage. We held the latter view, until the corona crisis. Trump was heavily favored prior to recession. Now the tables have turned. And a vice presidential role would improve her chances of being the first woman president later. The fact that she apparently does not want to run is obviously a huge problem. But her party needs her and this fact may become increasingly evident as Biden’s weaknesses are exposed. Vice presidential picks seldom make a difference in the campaign. At best they can help bring a swing state. But this election is different. Biden would turn 78 immediately after being elected; he is more likely than the average president to depend upon his VP while ruling, and to pass the baton to the VP early. COVID-19 underscores this risk. In other words, this year is the rare case where the Veep pick is important enough to matter and a charismatic candidate exists who could materially improve the odds of the opposition party’s victory. Would Michelle really help? An argument could be made that the Obama legacy is tarnished and that Trump would relish the chance to run against the Obama brand. However, our reasoning is based on Electoral College scenarios drawn from the best demographic data available, which suggest that the strongest challenge the Democrats can mount in 2020 is to reproduce the 2012 Obama/Biden ticket (Chart 21). Chart 21Electoral College Scenarios Say Biden/Obama 2012 Redux Best Shot For Dems To Beat Trump Chart 22Amash Is Small, But Significant Another important potential spoiler is Justin Amash. Amash is a former Republican who defected from the party due to his opposition to Trump and has since become the nation’s first congressman of the Libertarian Party. Amash could be important because he hails from Michigan, a key swing state, and is a splinter from the right-wing rather than the left-wing, thus potentially threatening President Trump’s thin margins in the battleground states. Currently Amash is winning 3%-5% of the popular vote, according to polls (Chart 22). Historically an extremely elevated third party vote is a threat to the incumbent president and ruling party, regardless of ideological affiliation. This is because it bespeaks general popular discontent, which in turn reflects negatively on the status quo and ruling party. However, so far Amash is not popular enough to hit the extremely elevated threshold. Looking at third party candidacies that have drawn more than 2% of the vote over history, the incumbent party wins 50% of the time. So the historical results are indecisive, but they do show potential for Amash to play the spoiler (Table 3). Table 3How Do Sitting US Presidents And Their Parties Fare When Voters Turn To Third Parties? Furthermore a larger group of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters are determined not to vote for Biden than Republican and Republican-leaning voters are determined not to vote for Trump (Chart 23). The Republican Party rank and file support Trump enthusiastically, more so than Democrats support Biden, especially in the swing states (Chart 24). This suggests that Amash will fail to get traction among Republicans. Chart 23Left-Leaners Reject Biden More Than Right-Leaners Reject Trump Chart 24GOP More Zealous For Trump Than Dems For Biden We would not rule him out, however. The context of pandemic, deep recession, and extreme polarization is fertile for a third party candidate, as was the case in 2016. If support for Trump wanes due to the mounting death toll and unemployment rate, the weakness of Biden might point to defections from Trump’s camp to Amash. Again, this could be particularly relevant in swing states. Amash may not garner more votes than Gary Johnson, his Libertarian predecessor in 2016, since that year saw an “open election” favorable to third parties, whereas this year there is an incumbent running. But Amash has flown entirely under the radar. He is therefore underrated by markets. And his impact, in the final analysis, will likely prove more negative for the ruling party than Biden, who is very far from a libertarian. Bottom Line: Peak polarization and a historic national crisis will produce black swans. But some spoilers are identifiable. Biden picking Michelle Obama, and a small but significant margin of Republicans defecting to Amash in swing states, are non-negligible risks to Trump’s reelection odds. What About The Senate? Democrats are likely to retain the House of Representatives, unless the positive trends for Trump that we have highlighted start to snowball into massive momentum. Hence the Senate will be decisive to the legislative success of the next administration. It is especially relevant if a Democrat wins, since the implication would be single party control of both legislative and executive branches. By contrast, Trump’s reelection would imply a continuation of today’s balance of power. Online gamblers have finally come around to our long-held view that the Senate will go the way of the White House: currently PredictIt gives the Democrats a 52% chance, up substantially from last year. Republican Senate leaders have openly aired their fears as the election cycle picks up. The risk to Republican control is not merely because the crisis has erased the uptick in Republican Party affiliation (Chart 25), nor is it due to the break in Republican momentum in generic voter party support (Chart 26), though these developments are unwelcome to Republicans. Chart 25Republican Affiliation Of Voters Rolls Over Chart 26Democrats Tick Up Slightly In Generic Congressional Ballot Rather, politics have increasingly become nationalized and more Republican senators are at risk than Democrats due to the windfall Republican senate victory in 2014. Current polling reinforces that the Senate stands on a knife’s edge, as all races are virtually tied, except Colorado, which is a likely shoo-in for Democrats. Arizona is almost as good for them (Chart 27). Democrats need to take four seats plus the White House to win the chamber. Chart 27Close Races In Senate Will Follow The White House Bottom Line: The Senate will go the way of the White House, which means the market is not only underrating a Biden victory but also underrating the probability that he is unconstrained. With peak polarization, and full Democratic control, Biden would not prove a center-left president in office. He would end up governing to the left of the Obama administration. Investment Takeaways Why does the election matter? If Trump loses, the United States will most likely see another total reversal of national policy, as in 2016 and 2008. Yet this time the macroeconomic, political, and demographic backdrop will make it harder for Republicans to stage as effective of resistance as in 2010-16. This is positive for aggregate demand, due to fiscal policy, but negative for corporate earnings. Biden will be pushed to the left by the progressive wing of his party and will face relatively few legislative or judicial constraints. The Democrats will also surprise the market with a tough stance toward China to steal back the mantle of fighting for American workers. Big business will face higher taxes, sweeping re-regulation, and trade restrictions, all at the same time. The S&P 500 has fallen 4% since we recommended investors step back from the rally. We see more downside due to sluggish recoveries, viral outbreaks, hiccups in providing stimulus, and political and geopolitical risks. The S&P’s next support levels are at 2670 and 2250. Chart 28China Faces Protectionism Either Way, But Europe Only With Trump In the short term, Trump’s odds are overrated. We will upgrade him if the stock market, economy, and political indicators improve substantially from what we are seeing today by August when the two parties hold their conventions. What about our view that Trump will crack down on China? A crackdown will cause the S&P to sell. Yet a dramatic selloff that destroys his reelection hopes, or a rally based on massive stimulus, both encourage him to escalate the crisis. Politically, confronting China is positive for him and he cannot let Biden outmaneuver him on workers, trade, and China. This entire dynamic leaves us inclined to be risk-averse. For investors with a long time horizon we recommend selective risk-on investments such as cyber-security, infrastructure, China reflation plays, and investment grade corporate bonds, the latter now backed by the Federal Reserve. A parting thought on industrials. Gargantuan stimulus is positive for cyclical stocks over the long run. But Trump’s reelection raises the prospect of trade war not only with China but also with Europe. It also increases the substantial risk of an expanding conflict with Iran that sows unrest in the Middle East over the next five years. Whereas Biden would seek a united front with Europe against China and would reduce Middle Eastern risks to Europe. Hence over the long run European industrials can benefit disproportionately from a Biden win, on a policy-oriented basis, compared to a Trump win (Chart 28). Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Fernando Crupi Research Associate fernandoc@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Compared to a simple regression line, the effect of the explanatory variable on the predicted probabilities varies along the curve. An increase (or decrease) in our explanatory variable by one unit has a smaller and smaller effect on the probability of victory as we approach our upper and lower probability bounds of 0 and 1. Obviously this model cannot fully explain the outcome of an election nor establish causality, but it gives us a good indication of how important the market performance is for an incumbent party to be re-elected. 2 Please see Acts of the Twenty-Eight Congress of the United States, Statute II, Library of Congress. www.loc.gov. 3 The only superior scenario mathematically, in which Biden aims solely at winning back the Democrats’ old blue collar white voter base, is much less likely to succeed given that these voters have drifted to the GOP in recent decades and have been galvanized by Trump.
Dear Client, In lieu of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report on China from Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Matt will discuss whether China’s President Xi Jinping is losing his political mandate. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The pandemic is likely to have a more severe impact on Main Street than Wall Street, which helps explain why stocks have rallied off their lows even as bond yields have remained depressed. Equity investors are hoping that central banks will keep rates lower for longer, while fiscal easing will revive demand. The end result could be lower bond yields within the context of a full employment economy – a win-win for stocks. In the near term, these hopes could be dashed, given bleak economic data, falling earnings estimates, and rising worries about a second wave of the pandemic. Longer term, an elevated equity risk premium and the likelihood that the pandemic will not have a significantly negative effect on the supply side of the economy argue for overweighting stocks over bonds. Negative real rates will continue to support gold prices. A weaker dollar later this year will also help. Divergent Signals Chart 1Conflicting Signals Global equities have rallied 24% off their March lows. The S&P 500 is down only 12% year-to-date and is trading close to where it was last August. In contrast, bond yields have barely risen since March. The US 10-year note currently yields 0.63%, down from 1.92% at the start of the year. The yield on the 30-year bond stands at a mere 1.3%. While crude oil and industrial metal prices have generally tracked bond yields, gold prices have rallied alongside equities (Chart 1). It would be easy to throw up one’s hands and exclaim that markets are behaving schizophrenically. Yet, we think it is possible to reconcile these seemingly divergent price patterns in a way that sheds light on where the major asset classes are likely to go in the months ahead. Two important points should be kept in mind: Bonds and industrial commodities tend to reflect the outlook for the real economy (i.e., Main Street) whereas stocks reflect the outlook for corporate earnings (i.e., Wall Street). The two often move together but can occasionally diverge in important ways. Stock prices and bond yields will tend to move in tandem when deflationary pressures are intensifying; however, the two often move in opposite directions when monetary policy is becoming more accommodative. The former prevailed in early March whereas the latter has been the dominant force since central banks have opened up the monetary spigots. The Real Economy Is Suffering The current economic downturn will go down as the deepest since the Great Depression. The IMF expects global GDP to contract by 3% this year, compared with a flat reading in 2009. GDP in advanced economies is projected to fall by 6%, twice as bad as in 2009 (Chart 2). Chart 2Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year Unemployment rates are also likely to reach the highest levels since the 1930s. The US unemployment rate spiked to 14.7% in April. Even that understates the true increase in joblessness. The labor force has shrunk by 8 million workers since February. If everyone who had left the labor force had been considered unemployed, the unemployment rate would have jumped to nearly 19% (Chart 3). Unemployment among less-skilled workers rose more than among the skilled. Joblessness also increased more among women than men (Chart 4). Chart 3Increase In Joblessness Is Understated Chart 4Unemployment Has Risen More For Less Skilled Workers And Women The one silver lining is that unlike in past recessions, temporary layoffs have accounted for the vast majority of job losses (Chart 5). This suggests that the links between firms and workers have yet to be severed. As businesses reopen, the hope is that most of these workers will be able to return to their jobs, fueling a rebound in spending. Chart 5Temporary Layoffs Account For Most Of The Recent Increase In Unemployment Risks Of A Second Wave Will that hope be realized? As we discussed last week, the virus that causes COVID-19 is highly contagious – probably twice as contagious as the one that caused the Spanish flu.1 While some social distancing measures will persist even if governments relax lockdown orders, the risk is high that we will see a second wave of infections. Even if a second wave ensues, we do not expect stocks to take out their March lows. In many places, the second wave could come on top of a first wave that has barely abated. This is precisely what happened during the Spanish flu pandemic (Chart 6). Stock prices and credit spreads have closely tracked the number of Google queries about the coronavirus (Chart 7). If the number of new infections begins to trend higher, concern about the pandemic will deepen. This makes us somewhat wary about the near-term direction of risk assets. Chart 6The Lesson From The Spanish Flu: The Second Wave Could Be Worse Than The First Chart 7Joined At The Hip March Was The Bottom In Equities Nevertheless, even if a second wave ensues, we do not expect stocks to take out their March lows. This is partly because the cone of uncertainty around the virus has narrowed. We now know that the fatality rate from the virus is around 1%-to-1.5%, which makes COVID-19 ten times more deadly than the common flu, but still less lethal than SARS or MERS, let alone some avian flu strains which have mortality rates upwards of 50%. A few treatments for the virus are on the horizon. Gilead’s remdesivir appears to be effective in treating COVID-19. Blood plasma injections also look promising. A vaccine developed by researchers at the University of Oxford has been shown to be safe on humans and effective against COVID-19 on rhesus monkeys. Production of the vaccine has already begun, and if it works well on humans, the Oxford scientists expect it to be widely available by September.2 The Stock Market Is Not The Economy Then there is the issue of Main Street versus Wall Street. US equities account for over half of global stock market capitalization. Tech and health care are the two largest sectors in the S&P 500. The former has benefited from the shift towards digital commerce in the wake of the pandemic, while the latter is a highly defensive sector that has gained from the flurry of interest in new treatments for the disease (Chart 8). Chart 8AUS Equity Sectors: Winners And Losers From The Pandemic (I) Chart 8BUS Equity Sectors: Winners And Losers From The Pandemic (II) Even within individual sectors, the impact on Wall Street has been more muted than on Main Street. For example, spending on consumer discretionary goods and services has plummeted across the real economy over the past few months. Yet, this has not hurt equity investors as much as one might have expected. Amazon accounts for 55% of the retail sector’s market capitalization. Home Depot is in second place by market cap. Home Depot’s stock is trading near an all-time high, buoyed by increased spending on home improvement projects by people stuck at home. McDonald's, which is benefiting from the shift to take-out ordering, is the largest stock in the consumer services sector (followed by Starbucks). Contrary to the claim that the stock market is blissfully ignorant of the mounting economic damage, those sectors that one would expect to suffer from a pandemic-induced downturn have, in fact, suffered. Airline stocks, which account for less than 2% of the industrials sector, have plunged. The same is true for cruise ship stocks. Bank stocks have also been beaten down, reflecting fears of heightened loan losses. Likewise, lower oil prices have undercut the stocks of energy exploration and production companies (Chart 9). At the regional level, non-US stocks, with their heavy weighting in deep cyclicals and financials, have underperformed their US peers. Small caps have also lagged their large cap brethren, while value stocks have trailed growth stocks (Chart 10). Chart 9Sectors Expected To Suffer From A Pandemic-Induced Downturn Have, In Fact, Suffered Chart 10Non-US Stocks, Small Caps, And Value Stocks Have Underperformed Tech stocks are overrepresented in growth indices, which helps explain why growth has outperformed value. Tech companies also tend to carry little debt while sporting large cash holdings. Companies with strong balance sheets have greatly outperformed companies with weak ones since the start of the year (Chart 11). Chart 11Firms With Strong Balance Sheets Have Excelled Relative To Weak Ones Chart 12Real Rates Have Come Down This Year In addition, growth companies have disproportionately benefited from the dramatic decline in real interest rates (Chart 12). A drop in the discount rate raises the present value of a stream of cash flows more the further out in time those cash flows are expected to be realized. What Low Bond Yields Are Telling Us Doesn’t the decline in real long-term interest rates signal that future economic growth will be considerably weaker? If so, doesn’t this nullify the benefit to growth companies in particular, and the stock market in general, from a lower discount rate? Not necessarily! While lockdowns have led to a temporary drop in aggregate supply, they have not severely undermined the long-term productive capacity of the economy. Unlike during a war, no factories have been destroyed. And while heightened unemployment could lead to some atrophying of skills, the human capital base has remained largely intact. Chart 13 shows that output-per-worker eventually returned to its long-term trend following the Great Depression. Chart 13No Clear Evidence That The Great Depression Lowered Long-Term Trend Growth What the pandemic has done is made some forms of capital obsolete. We probably will not need as many cruise ships or airplanes as we once thought. But these items are not a huge part of the capital stock. And while some brick and mortar stores will disappear, this was part of a long-term shift toward a digital economy – a shift that has been raising productivity levels, rather than lowering them. Demand Is The Bigger Issue So why have long-term real interest rates fallen so much? The answer has more to do with demand than supply. Investors are betting that the pandemic will force central banks to keep interest rates at ultra-low levels for a very long period of time. All things equal, such an extended period of low rates might be necessary if the pandemic causes households to increase precautionary savings and prompts businesses to cut back on investment spending for an extended period of time. All things are not equal, however. As discussed in greater detail in Box 1, if real interest rates fall by enough, aggregate demand could still return to levels consistent with full employment since lower interest rates would discourage savings while encouraging capital expenditures. What if interest rates cannot fall by enough because of the zero-lower bound? In that case, fiscal policy would have to pick up the slack. Either taxes would need to be cut so that the private sector becomes more eager to spend, or the government would need to undertake more spending directly on goods and services. When interest rates are close to zero, worries about debt sustainability diminish since debt can be rolled over at little cost. In the end, the economy could end up in a new post-pandemic equilibrium where real interest rates are lower and fiscal deficits are larger. Applying Theory To Practice Framed in this light, we can make sense of what has happened over the past few months. The drop in long-term bond yields in February and early March was driven by falling inflationary expectations and rising financial stress. Yields then briefly jumped in mid-March as panicky investors dumped bonds in a mad scramble to raise cash. Not surprisingly, stocks suffered during this period. The Federal Reserve reacted to this turmoil by cutting rates to zero. It also initiated large-scale asset purchases, which injected much needed cash into the markets. In addition, the Fed dusted off the alphabet soup of programs created during the financial crisis, while launching a few new ones in an effort to increase the availability of credit and reduce funding costs. Other central banks also eased aggressively. As Chart 14 illustrates with a set of simple examples, even a modest decline in long-term interest rates has the power to significantly raise the present value of future cash flows. To compliment the easing in monetary policy, governments loosened fiscal policy (Chart 15). The point of the stimulus was not to raise GDP. After all, governments wanted most non-essential workers to remain at home. What fiscal easing did do was allow many struggling households and businesses to meet their financial obligations, while hopefully having enough income left over to generate some pent-up demand for when businesses did reopen their doors. Chart 14What Happens To Earnings During A Recessionary Shock? Chart 15Will It Be Enough? Ultimately, equity investors are hoping for an outcome where fiscal policy is eased by enough to eventually restore full employment while interest rates stay low well beyond that point in order to induce the private sector to keep spending: A win-win combination for stocks. Chart 16Gold Prices Move In The Opposite Direction To Real Rates The discussion above can also explain the divergent moves in commodity prices. Most industrial metals are consumed not long after they are produced. This makes industrial metal prices highly sensitive to the state of the global business cycle. In contrast, almost all of the gold that has ever been unearthed is still around. This makes gold an anticipatory asset whose price reflects expectations about future demand. Since owning gold does not generate any income, the opportunity cost of holding gold is simply the interest rate (Chart 16). When real interest rates rise, as they did briefly in early March when deflationary fears intensified, gold prices tend to fall. When real interest rates decline, as they did after central banks slashed rates and restarted large-scale QE programs, gold prices tend to rise. Investment Conclusions The current environment bears a passing resemblance to the one that prevailed in late 2008. Following the stock market crash in the wake of Lehman’s bankruptcy, the S&P 500 rallied by 24% between November 20, 2008 and January 6, 2009 to reach a level of 935. Had you bought stocks on that day in January, you still would have made good money over a 12-month horizon. However, you would have lost money over a 3-month horizon since the S&P 500 ultimately dropped to as low as 667 on March 6. During that painful first quarter of 2009, the economic surprise index remained firmly below zero, while earnings estimates continued to drift lower, just like today (Chart 17). As noted above, we do not expect stocks to take out their March 2020 lows, but a temporary sell-off would not surprise us, especially against a backdrop where a second wave of the pandemic looks increasingly likely. Chart 17Is Today A Replay Of Late 2008/Early 2009? Chart 18Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon Despite our near-term concerns, we continue to think that stocks will outperform bonds over a 12-month horizon. The equity risk premium remains elevated, particularly outside the US (Chart 18). While non-US stocks do not have as much exposure to tech and health care, they do benefit from very cheap valuations. European banks are trading at washed out levels (Chart 19). The cyclically-adjusted PE ratio for EM stocks is near record lows (Chart 20). Investors should consider increasing exposure to non-US equities if global growth begins to reaccelerate this summer. Chart 19European Banks Are Trading At Washed Out Levels Chart 20EM Stocks Are Very Cheap Given our view that central banks want real rates to stay low and will refrain from tightening monetary policy even if inflation eventually begins to rise, investors should maintain above-average exposure to gold. A weaker US dollar later this year will also help bullion. Box 1The Role Of Monetary And Fiscal Policy Following Savings Shocks Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Risks To The U,” dated May 7, 2020. 2 Charlie D’Agata, “Oxford scientists say a vaccine may be widely available by September,” cbsnews (April 30, 2020). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights Our baseline view foresees a U-shaped recovery, as economies slowly relax lockdown measures. There are significant risks to this forecast, however. On the upside, a vaccine or effective treatment could hasten the reopening of economies and recovery in spending. On the downside, containment measures could end up being eased too quickly, leading to a surge in new cases. A persistent spell of high unemployment could also permanently damage economies, especially if fiscal and monetary stimulus is withdrawn too quickly. In addition, geopolitical risks loom large, with the US election likely to be fought on who sounds tougher on China. Earnings estimates have yet to fall as much as we think they will, making global equities vulnerable to a near-term correction. Nevertheless, the spread between earnings yields and bond yields is wide enough to justify a modest overweight to stocks on a 12-month horizon. Is It Safe To Come Down? We published a report two weeks ago entitled Still Stuck In The Tree where we likened the current situation to one where an angry bear has chased a hiker up a tree.1 Having reached a high enough branch to escape immediate danger, the hiker breathes a sigh of relief. As time goes by, however, the hiker starts to get nervous. Rather than disappearing back into the forest, the bear remains at the base of the tree licking its chops. Meanwhile, the hiker is cold, hungry, and late for work. Like the hiker, the investment community breathed a collective sigh of relief when the number of cases in Italy and Spain, the first two major European economies to be hit by the coronavirus, began to trend lower. In New York City, which quickly emerged as the epicentre of the crisis in the United States, more COVID patients have been discharged from hospitals than admitted for the past three weeks (Chart 1). Chart 1Discharges From New York Hospitals Have Exceeded Admissions For The Past Three Weeks Deepest Recession Since The 1930s Yet, this progress has come at a very heavy economic cost. The IMF expects the global economy to shrink by 3% this year (Chart 2). In 2009, global GDP barely contracted. Chart 2Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year The sudden stop in economic activity has led to a surge in unemployment. According to the Bloomberg consensus estimate, the US unemployment rate rose to 16% in April. The true unemployment rate is probably higher since to be considered unemployed one has to be looking for work, which is difficult if not impossible in the presence of widespread lockdowns. Regardless, even the official unemployment rate is the worst since the Great Depression (Chart 3). Chart 3Unemployment Rate Seen Jumping To Levels Not Reached Since The Great Depression Unshackling The Economy A key difference from the 1930s is that today’s recession has been self-induced. Policymakers want workers to stay home as much as possible. The hope is that once businesses reopen, most of these workers will return to their jobs. How long will that take? Our baseline scenario envisions a slow but steady reopening of the global economy starting later this month, which should engender a U-shaped economic recovery. Since mid-March, much of the world has been trying to compensate for lost time by taking measures that would not have been necessary if policymakers had acted sooner. As Box 1 explains, some loosening of lockdown measures could be achieved without triggering a second wave of cases once the infection rate has been brought down to a sufficiently low level. To the extent that economic activity tends to move in tandem with the number of interactions that people have, a relaxation of social distancing measures should produce a modest rebound in growth. New technologies and a better understanding of how the virus is transmitted should also allow some of the more economically burdensome measures to be lifted. As we have discussed before, mass testing can go a long way towards reducing the spread of the disease (Chart 4).2 Right now, high-quality tests are in short supply, but that should change over the coming months. Chart 4Mass Testing Will Help Increased mask production should also help. Early in the pandemic, officials in western nations promulgated the view that masks do not work. At best, this was a noble lie designed to ensure that anxious consumers did not deprive frontline workers of necessary safety equipment. At worst, it needlessly led many people astray. As East Asia’s experience shows, mask wearing saves lives. A recent paper estimated that the virus could be vanquished if 80% of people wore masks that were at least 60% effective, a very low bar that even cloth masks would pass (Chart 5).3 Chart 5Masks On! Recent research has also cast doubt on the merits of closing schools. The China/WHO joint commission could not find a single instance during contact tracing where a child transmitted the virus to an adult. A study by the UK Royal College of Paediatrics provides further support to the claim that children are unlikely to be important vectors of transmission. The evidence includes a case study of a nine year-old boy who contracted the virus in the French Alps but fortunately failed to transmit it to any of the more than 170 people he had contact with in three separate schools.4 Along the same lines, there is evidence that the odds of adults catching the virus indoors is at least one order of magnitude higher than outdoors.5 This calls into question the strategy of states such as California of clearing out prisons of dangerous felons in order to make room for beachgoers.6 Upside Risks To The U: Medical Breakthroughs While a U-shaped economic recovery remains our base case, we see both significant upside and downside risks to this outcome. The best hope for an upside surprise is that a vaccine or effective treatment becomes available soon. There are already eight human vaccine trials underway, with another 100 in the planning stages. In the race to develop a vaccine, Oxford is arguably in the lead. Scientists at the university’s Jenner Institute have developed a genetically modified virus that is harmless to people, but which still prompts the immune system to produce antibodies that may be able to fight off COVID. The vaccine has already worked well on rhesus monkeys. If it proves effective on humans, researchers hope to have several million doses available by September. On the treatment side, Gilead’s remdesivir gained FDA approval for emergency use after early results showed that it helps hasten the recovery of coronavirus patients. Hydroxychloroquine, which President Trump has touted on numerous occasions, is the subject of dozens of clinical trials internationally. While evidence that hydroxychloroquine can treat the virus post-infection is thin, there is some data to suggest that it can work well as a prophylactic.7 Research is also being conducted on nearly 200 other treatments, including an improbable contender: famotidine, the compound found in the heartburn remedy Pepcid.8 Downside Risk: Too Open, Too Soon Chart 6The Lesson From The Spanish Flu: The Second Wave Could Be Worse Than The First As noted above, once the number of new cases drops to sufficiently low levels, some relaxation of containment measures can be achieved without reigniting the pandemic. That said, there is a clear danger that measures will end up being relaxed too aggressively and too soon. This is precisely what happened during the Spanish Flu (Chart 6). It has become customary to talk about the risk of a second wave of infections; however, the reality is that we have not even concluded the first wave. While the number of cases in New York has been falling, it has been rising in many other US states. As a result, the total number of new coronavirus cases nationwide has remained steady for the past five weeks (Chart 7). It is the same story globally: Falling caseloads in western Europe and East Asia have been offset by rising cases in countries such as Russia, India, and Brazil (Chart 8). Chart 7The Spread Of COVID-19 Has Not Been Contained Everywhere (I) Chart 8The Spread Of Covid-19 Has Not Been Contained Everywhere (II) Chart 9Widespread Social Distancing Has Dampened The Spread Of All Flus And Colds At the heart of the problem is that COVID-19 remains a highly contagious disease. Most studies assign a Reproduction Number, R, of 3-to-4 to the virus. As a point of comparison, the Spanish flu is estimated to have had an R of 1.8. An R of 3.5 would require about 70% of the population to acquire herd immunity to keep the virus at bay.9 As discussed in Box 2, the “true” level of herd immunity may be substantially greater than that. At this point, if you come down with a cough and fever, you should assume you have COVID. As Chart 9 shows, social distancing measures have brought the number of viral respiratory illnesses down to almost zero in the United States. Up to 30% of common cold cases stem from the coronavirus family. Just like it would be foolhardy to assume that the common cold has been banished from the face of the earth, it would be unwise to assume that COVID will not return if containment measures are quickly lifted. Downside Risk: Permanent Economic Damage Chart 10No Spike In Bankruptcies For Now There are a lot of asymmetries in economics: It is easier to lose a job than to find one; starting a new business is also more difficult than going bankrupt. The good news so far is that bankruptcies have been limited and most unemployed workers have not been permanently laid off (Chart 10 and Chart 11). Thus, for the most part, the links that bind firms to workers have not been severed. Chart 11Temporary Layoffs Account For Most Of The Recent Increase In Unemployment Unfortunately, there is a risk that the economy will suffer permanent damage if unemployment remains high and economic activity stays depressed. For some sectors, such as airlines, long-term damage is nearly assured. It took a decade for real household spending on airlines to return to pre 9/11 levels (Chart 12). It could take even longer for the physiological scars of the pandemic to fade. While businesses outside the travel and hospitality sectors will see a quicker rebound, they could still experience subdued demand for as long as social distancing measures persist. Chart 129/11 Was A Big Shock For US Air Travel There is not much that fiscal policy can do to reverse the immediate hit to GDP from the pandemic. If people cannot work, they cannot produce. What fiscal stimulus can do is push enough money into the hands of households and firms to enable them to meet their financial obligations, while hopefully creating some pent-up demand that can be unleashed when businesses reopen. For now and for the foreseeable future, there is no need to tighten fiscal policy. The private sector in the major economies is generating plenty of savings with which governments can finance budget deficits. Indeed, standard economic theory suggests that if governments tried to “save more” by reducing budget deficits, total national savings would actually decline.10 Nevertheless, just as fiscal policy was prematurely tightened in many countries following the Great Recession, there is a risk that austerity measures will be reintroduced too quickly again. Likewise, calls to tighten monetary policy could grow louder. Just this week, Germany’s constitutional court ruled that the EU Court of Justice had overstepped its powers by failing to require the ECB to conduct an assessment of the “proportionality” of its controversial asset purchase policy. The German high court ordered the Bundesbank to suspend QE in three months unless the ECB Governing Council provides “documentation” showing it meets the criteria of proportionality. Among other things, the ruling could undermine the ECB’s newly launched €750 billion Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP). Downside Risk: Geopolitical Tensions Had the virus originated anywhere else but China, President Trump could have made a political case for further deescalating the Sino-US trade war in an effort to shore up the US economy and stock market. Not only did that not happen, but the likelihood of a new clash between China and the US has gone up dramatically. Antipathy towards China is rising (Chart 13). As our geopolitical team has stressed, the US election is likely to be fought on who can sound tougher on China. With the economy on the ropes, Trump will try to paint Joe Biden as too passive and conflicted to stand up to China. Indeed, running as a “war president” may be Trump’s only chance of getting re-elected. Chart 13US Nationalism Is On The Rise Amid Broad-Based Anti-China Sentiment At the domestic political level, the pandemic has exacerbated already glaringly wide inequalities. While well-paid white-collar workers have been able to work from the comfort of their own homes, poorer blue-collar workers have either been furloughed or asked to continue working in a dangerous environment (in nursing homes or meat-packing plants, for example). It is not clear what the blowback from all this will be, but it is unlikely to be benign. Investment Implications Global equities and credit spreads have tracked the frequency of Google search queries for “coronavirus” remarkably well (Chart 14). As coronavirus queries rose, stocks plunged; as the number of queries subsided, stocks rallied. If there is a second wave of infections, anxiety about the virus is likely to grow again, leading to another sell-off in risk assets. Chart 14Joined At The Hip Chart 15Negative Earnings Revisions Will Weigh On Stocks In The Near Term Earnings estimates have come down, but are still above where we think they ought to be. This makes global equities vulnerable to a correction (Chart 15). Meanwhile, retail investors have been active buyers, eagerly gobblingup stocks such as American Airlines and Norwegian Cruise Lines that have fallen on hard times recently (Chart 16). They have also been active buyers of the USO oil ETF, which is down 80% year-to-date. When retail investors are trying to catch a falling knife, that is usually an indication that stocks have yet to reach a bottom. As such, we recommend that investors maintain a somewhat cautious stance on the near-term direction of stocks. Chart 16Retail Investors Keen To Buy The Dip Chart 17Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon Chart 18USD Is A Countercyclical Currency Looking further out, the spread between earnings yields and bond yields is wide enough to justify a modest overweight to stocks on a 12-month horizon (Chart 17). If global growth does end up rebounding, cyclicals should outperform defensives. As a countercyclical currency, the dollar will probably weaken (Chart 18). A weaker greenback, in turn, will boost commodity prices (Chart 19). Historically, stronger global growth and a softer dollar have translated into outperformance of non-US stocks relative to their US peers (Chart 20). Thus, investors should prepare to add international equity exposure to their portfolios later this year. Chart 19Commodity Prices Usually Rise When The Dollar Weakens Chart 20Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening Box 1The Dynamics Of R Box 2Why Herd Immunity Is Not Enough Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Still Stuck In The Tree,” dated April 16, 2020. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Testing Times,” dated April 9, 2020. 3 Philip Anfinrud, Valentyn Stadnytskyi, et al., “Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light Scattering,” nejm.org (April 15, 2020); Jeremy Howard, Austin Huang, Li Zhiyuan, Zeynep Tufekci, Vladmir Zdimal, Helene-mari van der Westhuizen, et al., “Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review,” Preprints.org, (April 12, 2020); and Liang Tian, Xuefei Li, Fei Qi, Qian-Yuan Tang, Viola Tang, Jiang Liu, Zhiyuan Li, Xingye Cheng, Xuanxuan Li, Yingchen Shi, Haiguang Liu, and Lei-Han Tang, “Calibrated Intervention and Containment of the COVID-19 Pandemic,” arxiv.org (April 2, 2020). 4 “COVID-19 – Research Evidence Summaries,” Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; and Alison Boast, Alasdair Munro, and Henry Goldstein, “An evidence summary of Paediatric COVID-19 literature,” Don’t Forget The Bubbles (2020). 5 Hiroshi Nishiura, Hitoshi Oshitani, Tetsuro Kobayashi, Tomoya Saito, Tomimasa Sunagawa, Tamano Matsui, Takaji Wakita, MHLW COVID-19 Response Team, and Motoi Suzuki, “Closed environments facilitate secondary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),” medRxiv (April 16, 2020). 6 “Coronavirus: Arrests as California beachgoers defy lockdown,” Skynews (April 26, 2020); and “High-risk sex offender rearrested days after controversial release from OC Jail,” abc7.com (May 1, 2020). 7 Sun Hee Lee, Hyunjin Son, and Kyong Ran Peck, “Can post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 be considered as an outbreak response strategy in long-term care hospitals?” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents (April 25, 2020). 8 Brendan Borrell, “New York clinical trial quietly tests heartburn remedy against coronavirus,” Science (April 26, 2020). 9 In the simplest models, the herd immunity threshold is reached when P = 1-1/Ro, where P is the proportion of the population which has acquired immunity and Ro is the basic reproductive number. Assuming an Ro of 3.5, heard immunity will be achieved once more than 71.4% of the population has been infected (1-1/3.5). For further discussion on this, please refer to Global Investment Strategy, “Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V,” dated March 27, 2020. 10 It is easiest to understand this point by considering a closed economy where savings, by definition, equals investment. Savings is the sum of private and public savings. Suppose the economy is depressed and the government increases public savings by either raising taxes or cutting spending. Since this action will further depress the economy, private investment will fall even more. But, since investment must equal total savings, private savings must decline more than proportionately with any increase in public savings. This happens because tighter fiscal policy leads to lower GDP. It is difficult to save if one does not have a job. To the extent that lower GDP reduces employment, it also tends to reduce private-sector savings. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights The air is thick with denunciations of the Fed’s new round of aggressive interventions … : In financial circles, it’s beginning to sound like the winter of 2008-9 all over again, as respected thought leaders with enviable track records decry bailouts. … but we are firmly resolved to keep judgments about what central banks ought to do out of our analysis of the market impacts of their actions: “Dogmatic” is about the worst thing one BCA researcher can call another. The Fed’s expanded lending remit may simply be the logical evolution of the Debt Supercycle: The Debt Supercycle may have reached its natural limit, but policy makers won’t surrender such a cherished tool without a fight. Capitalism isn’t entirely dead, and the Fed isn’t the Coast Guard or the Forest Service: The new approach is meant to protect society, not individuals who get themselves into idiosyncratic trouble. Feature We will be holding a webcast next Monday, May 11th at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time in lieu of publishing a Weekly Report. Please join us with your questions to make it a fully interactive event. We will resume our regular publication schedule on the 18th. Here we go again. A potentially catastrophic recession has arrived, and the Fed has embarked on a series of unprecedented actions to try to shield the economy from it. Its goal is to stave off hysteresis, whereby a cyclical downturn, left unchecked, gives rise to a structural albatross that weighs on long-run growth. Just how much a central bank ought to interpose itself between the economy and its participants can be a matter of fierce debate, as it was in November 2010, when 23 members of the broader economic community, including three elite investors and a handful of respected economists, signed an open letter to Ben Bernanke, urging him to abandon QE2 (Box 1). Box 1 A Central Bank Can’t Win Open Letter to Ben Bernanke November 15, 2010 We believe the Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called “quantitative easing”) should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed’s objective of promoting employment. We subscribe to your statement in the Washington Post on November 4 that “the Federal Reserve cannot solve all the economy’s problems on its own.” In this case, we think improvements in tax, spending and regulatory policies must take precedence in a national growth program, not further monetary stimulus. We disagree with the view that inflation needs to be pushed higher, and worry that another round of asset purchases, with interest rates still near zero over a year into the recovery, will distort financial markets and greatly complicate future Fed efforts to normalize monetary policy. The Fed’s purchase program has also met broad opposition from other central banks and we share their concerns that quantitative easing by the Fed is neither warranted nor helpful in addressing either US or global economic problems.1 Dire forecasts about the effects of the Fed's unconven-tional GFC interventions have not come to pass and have since been emulated by other major central banks. No one bats a thousand when predicting the future, but the authors of the letter could not have been further off the mark when they warned about currency debasement and inflation. Monetary policy has not yet been normalized in the way anyone would have defined it at the time, but other central banks have overcome their aversion to QE, pursuing it as avidly as the Fed (Chart 1). One should also note that some of the author-investors were not disinterested observers. QE signaled an extended period of easy monetary conditions that was likely to narrow distinctions among individual companies, undermining stock-picking processes that had produced outperformance against a conventional monetary policy backdrop. Chart 1What Was Once Unthinkable Has Become Routine Moral Hazard Inflation and the dollar are well down the list in the latest round of denunciations, which are principally occupied with moral hazard. In his outlook last week, Guggenheim Investments’ CIO Scott Minerd warned that the Fed’s purchases of corporate debt establish a new precedent that will have a persistent half-life, if QE is any guide. By socializing credit risk, he asserts, the purchases mark the end of US free-market capitalism as we have always known it. Two weeks before, Howard Marks argued that capitalist principles are being undermined by the Fed’s programs, if not entirely overthrown: Most of us believe in the free-market system as the best allocator of resources. Now it seems the government is happy to step in and take the place of private actors. We have a buyer and lender of last resort, cushioning pain but taking over the role of the free market. When people get the feeling that the government will protect them from unpleasant financial consequences of their actions, it’s called “moral hazard.” There’s an old saying … to the effect that “capitalism without bankruptcy is like Catholicism without hell.” It appeals to me strongly. Markets work best when participants have a healthy fear of loss. It shouldn’t be the role of the Fed or the government to eradicate it. We have never been enamored of the concept of the Fed put because we don’t think it is terribly relevant for any individual investment decision maker, and relying on it could be hazardous to one’s health. First, the Fed put is absolutely not an at-the-money put, or even a put with a strike price that is only slightly out of the money. It doesn’t do an investor much good if the Fed doesn’t ride to the rescue until his/her position is 30% underwater. Second, the Fed doesn’t care if any individual entity fails. It only acts to protect the overall financial system and the broad economy. An individual entity that gets into trouble cannot count on the Fed to throw it a lifeline. The Fed is not the Coast Guard or the Forest Service, which will go to great lengths to rescue a foolhardy or unskilled pilot or hiker who gets in over his or her head in rough weather. It cares only about the collective, and the only way an individual entity can count on receiving aid is if everyone else runs into trouble at the same time. That collective insurance policy may promote some operational risk-taking at the margin, but we wouldn’t want to rely on it. How could an overleveraged company possibly know that a critical mass of other companies will get into trouble at the same time? The Fed put doesn’t apply to the first entity to fail, or to entities in industries that are not seen as critical. It could surely encourage investors to lend to entities of dubious quality, but timing is everything there, too. The less-than-pristine borrower will have to hold on long enough to be somewhere in the middle of the pack of failing entities to qualify for a life preserver. The Trouble With The Austrians We lean to the view that moral hazard, as promoted by Fed policies, is largely in the eye of the beholder. The ability to perceive moral hazard seems to be related to one’s propensity for moral indignation. Austrian School devotees (Box 2) regularly have that propensity in spades. Box 2 An Austrian’s Lonely Lot The Austrian School of Economics most saliently parts company with neoclassical economics in its adamant opposition to government intervention and its fraught relationship with credit. Instead of intervening to counter business cycles, Austrians would prefer to let busts run their course so as to cleanse the economy of the excesses embedded in booms. They occupy the Mellonian, purge-the-rottenness-out-of-the-system end of the continuum in opposition to the Debt Supercycle’s unconditional forgiveness. Austrians regard banking and credit with some measure of suspicion, as Austrian Business Cycle Theory holds that artificially low interest rates are the raw material of destabilizing booms. Encouraged by central bankers seeking to steer an economy out of recession with a bare minimum of discomfort, borrowers take on debt to invest in projects that may not be able to pay their own way were it not for intervention. Once rates rise after policy accommodation fades, the economy slows and the extent of the malinvestment is revealed. The Debt Supercycle prescribes more of the hair of the dog to alleviate the suffering from malinvestment. The debt overhang is thereby never eliminated; it instead continues to silt up, requiring larger and larger interventions. Unchecked, the degree of intervention required to keep the plates spinning will eventually exceed capacity. Austrians despise the existence of such an arrangement, but it is so thoroughly entrenched in the reigning orthodoxy that an investor who becomes emotionally invested in opposing it is at risk of serially tilting at windmills. There is nothing wrong with the Austrian School per se. We rather like its outsider status, and actively seek heterodox inputs and perspectives so as to stay out of the ruts of the well-worn consensus path. Even its pessimistic bent has its uses; investors are surely exposed to enough cheerleading. Its prescriptions are so bracing, however, that a little goes a long way and real-world users should handle them with care. A popular pair of You Tube videos of actors portraying Keynes and Hayek dueling via raps about their respective ideologies (Keynes: I want to steer markets/Hayek: I want them set free!) provide an entertaining example of the Austrian-inspired investor’s dilemma. Keynes, drink after drink in hand, is the exuberant life of the party, while the sallow Hayek stares into the bottom of his glass, unable to capture any other partygoers’ attention. The simple conceit animating the video – Keynesianism is fun; Austrians are dour scolds – resonates deeply with elected officials, even if they never studied Economics. Voters love free drinks, but hate being told to eat their vegetables. There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no Austrians in crises. When push comes to shove, government officials will do what they can to alleviate economic pain. The Austrian School, therefore, is a poor guide to the path that policy is likely to take. It also has the problematic effect of introducing an element of moral judgment into what should be a purely objective sphere. Investors should maintain a laser-like focus on what is most likely to happen and strive to suppress extraneous notions about what should happen. The Debt Supercycle’s Second Act Chart 3The End Of An Era? Call us jaded, but after 20-plus years in the business, the Austrians, with their fusty rectitude and gold-standard nostalgia, have come to seem like utopians. We prefer to borrow a page from public choice theory, and assume that elected and appointed officials respond to incentives just as surely as individuals outside of government. Legislators will pull fiscal levers to keep the party going and extend their own tenures, while the Fed will do its utmost to preserve its discretion to steer the economy as it sees fit. From that perspective, the Fed’s pull-out-all-the-stops approach to protecting markets and the economy simply looks like a logical evolution of the Debt Supercycle (Box 3). Now that a decade of zero and near-zero rates has failed to stimulate private sector borrowing (Chart 3), our colleague Martin Barnes has written that the Debt Supercycle is played out. Changing consumer preferences (Chart 4) and regulatory measures reining in banks’ lending capacity have impeded the credit channel, sharply degrading the Fed’s conventional policy arsenal. Central bankers want to remain in the thick of the action as much as any other bureaucrats, and it follows that the Fed has expanded its remit with unconventional measures that maintain its relevance. Chart 4Consumer Preferences Have Changed Since The GFC Box 3 The Debt Supercycle Longtime BCA clients are familiar with the Debt Supercycle concept, which holds that postwar Fed stimulus provoked successive waves of household and corporate borrowing to reflate the economy following recessions. Managing the economy with countercyclical fiscal and monetary policy has helped make recessions less frequent and less severe than they had been under the laissez faire prewar approach (Chart 2). Chart 2Intervention Has Helped Tame Cyclical Oscillations The only rub was that serial interventions to promote a quickening in the flow of new credit left the economy with an ever-increasing stock of debt. The prewar recessions were vicious, but bank and business failures allowed for frequent balance sheet resets that purged the economy of its boom excesses. The Debt Supercycle effectively sacrificed modest increments of structural stability for cyclical stability. Structural instability rose in step with the stock of debt, driving up the potential long-run cost of cyclical slumps, making the preservation of the Debt Supercycle increasingly imperative. Investment Implications We do not think investors should adjust to the new central banking orthodoxy by loading their portfolios with risk to embrace the Fed put. That put only applies to markets collectively, and cannot be seen as insurance for any single economic entity or asset portfolio. It would also be a mistake to renounce risk, however, by refusing to participate in a rigged game that violates Austrian principles. Investors should simply recognize that the new monetary orthodoxy calls for central banks to throw the kitchen sink at major economic threats. That suggests that shorts or underweights in risk assets based on macro vulnerabilities should be covered or closed without delay once a preset downside target has been reached. It seems that investors had 2009 in mind when they dove back into risk assets upon the Fed’s March 23rd announcement of its mix of revised and brand-new lending facilities and the March 27th passage of the CARES Act.2 No one wants to miss a big policy-induced bounce. Buy what the Fed is buying, and don't stress over it. Investors should buy what the Fed’s buying while its purchase programs and lending facilities are operating. That subset includes agency CMBS, AAA-rated CMBS, AAA-rated ABS, investment grade corporate debt and newly fallen angels in the BB-rated tier. Though they’ve already had a hearty bounce, agency mortgage REITs offer an equity vehicle for playing the Fed-purchase theme, as do the SIFI banks, which are the biggest indirect beneficiary of reduced default rates. We expect Guggenheim’s admonition that the Fed’s support of corporate borrowers will have a long half-life will prove to be accurate. As our Chief Global Fixed Income strategist put it at last week’s meeting to review long-term virus impacts, “Everyone on this call may be retired before a central banker ever utters the word ‘taper’ again.” That may not be the backdrop this free-markets devotee would choose, but it’s the backdrop all of us will have for the foreseeable future, and we’re determined to make the most of it. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke. Accessed April 28, 2020. 2 Please see the April 14, 2020 US Investment Strategy/US Bond Strategy Special Report, "Alphabet Soup: A Summary of the Fed’s Anti-Virus Measures," available at www.bcaresearch.com.