Developed Countries

Highlights Global growth should bounce back in the third quarter, as mass COVID-19 testing allows more people to return to work. Temporary layoffs have accounted for the vast majority of the increase in unemployment so far. Ample fiscal and monetary support should prevent these layoffs from becoming permanent. The equity risk premium remains quite high, which warrants overweighting equities relative to bonds over a 12-month horizon. The near-term outlook for stocks is less flattering, given the strong rally in equities over the past two weeks and the fact that earnings estimates are likely to fall sharply once companies begin to report first quarter results. Accordingly, we recommend that investors take some chips off the table in preparation for a temporary stock market pullback. We are also shifting our near-term regional equity allocation and currency views in a somewhat more defensive direction. As Bad As It Gets? Chart 1Nosedive In High-Frequency Activity Indicators The global economy has plunged into a deep recession. The New York Fed’s weekly economic index, which tracks a variety of high-frequency activity indicators such as same-store retail sales, consumer sentiment, fuel sales, and unemployment insurance claims, has plunged below its 2008 lows (Chart 1). Service-sector purchasing manager indices have collapsed to the weakest levels on record (Chart 2). The OECD estimates that the shutdowns have reduced the level of output by between one-fifth and one-quarter in most advanced economies (Chart 3).1 If business closures were to last three months, this would shave between 4-to-6 percentage points from annual growth in the OECD in 2020.   Chart 2Service-Sector Activity Has Collapsed To Unprecedented Lows Chart 3Severe Economic Consequences Resulting From World War V At times like these, it is easy to despair about the future. Yet, there are three reasons to think that the worst of the economic damage will be over within the next few months: The measures necessary to control the virus are likely to be relaxed without this leading to a new wave of infections. Recessions following exogenous shocks, such the one we are currently experiencing, tend to produce faster recoveries than those stemming from endogenous slowdowns. Policy will remain highly supportive, mitigating possible adverse second-round effects. Quarantine Measures Are Likely To Be Relaxed In our recently published Q2 Strategy Outlook, we likened the current situation to one where a cyclist fails to apply the brakes when starting to descend a steep hill. Not only does the cyclist need to squeeze the brake levers to slow down, he needs to squeeze them harder than he would otherwise have in order to compensate for failing to squeeze them at the outset. Only once the bicycle has decelerated to a safe speed can he ease off the brakes a bit. Most countries find themselves in the position of the cyclist. Policymakers were too slow to react at the outset of the pandemic, and now have to compensate for their inaction by imposing draconian containment measures. In epidemiological language, policymakers are seeking to reduce the effective reproduction number – the average number of people a carrier of the virus will infect – from well above one to well below one. As long as the reproduction number stays below one, the number of new infections will keep falling. Once the number of new cases has declined to a level that no longer overwhelms hospitals, policymakers will be able to relax containment measures by just enough to bring the reproduction number back to one. This will create a new steady state where the number of new infections remains at a stable and manageable level.  The good news is that the strategy appears to be working. The number of new cases and deaths have started to decline in both Italy and Spain, the two hardest hit European countries. In the US, while the number of new cases has yet to show a clear downward trend, there are glimmers of hope (Chart 4). For example, the net number of people admitted to New York hospitals has declined sharply since the beginning of April (Chart 5). Chart 4New Cases And Deaths: Have We Turned The Corner? Chart 5Glimmer Of Hope Emanating From The Big Apple? Test, Test, Test While keeping the reproduction number from rising above one will still require a variety of containment measures, the economic burden of these measures will decline over time. Using the bicycle analogy above, this is equivalent to saying that the road will become flatter the further down we go. To some extent, we will be able to relax containment measures because the virus will find it more difficult to propagate as more people are infected. However, unless it turns out that the number of asymptomatic cases is currently much greater than most estimates suggest, the benefits from this effect are likely to be small. The bigger impact will come not from making headway towards herd immunity, but from scaling up existing testing technologies to figure out who is dangerous to others and who is not. Forcing almost everyone who is not deemed to be an “essential worker” to stay at home is hardly an optimal strategy. Rather than trying to isolate most people, it would be preferable to isolate only those who are infected. The problem is that we currently do not know who those people are. That will change as testing capacity ramps up. Right now, we are in the same predicament as if there had been a major terrorist attack using an explosive device that was invisible to conventional detectors. Just like there would have been a temptation to stop all air travel until we figured out how to detect the new type of bomb, we have decided to stop most commerce because we do not know who may be carrying the virus. The good news is that the technology to test people for COVID-19 exists. Abbott Labs has already unveiled a PCR test, which detects specific genetic material within the virus, that can render a positive result in as little as five minutes and a negative one in thirteen minutes. Last Wednesday, the FDA authorized a rapid antibody blood test for COVID-19 developed by Cellex, which can determine if someone previously had the virus and has recovered. Pessimists would highlight that there is currently a severe shortage of test kits. That is true, but we should avoid the trap of linear thinking that got us into this mess to begin with. Producing more tests is an engineering problem that will be solved. As the number of tests performed begins to increase exponentially, testing will become ubiquitous. How much would mass testing help? The answer is a lot. Paul Romer has shown that a strategy of randomly testing everyone roughly once every two weeks would bring down the total number of people who contract the virus to under 20% of the population.2 In his simulation, only 5%-to-10% of the population would need to be quarantined at any given time. In the absence of mass testing, 50% of the population would need to be quarantined to yield the same result (See Appendix 1 for details). The economy can handle isolating 5%-to-10% of its population at any given time. It cannot handle isolating half its population. Just like you have to X-ray your luggage at the airport, you may end up having to take a COVID-19 test before boarding a flight. Children will be tested at school several times a week; first responders more often than that. It will be a nuisance, but the alternative of a Great Depression is much worse. And if it is any consolation, at least this is one test you won’t have to study for! Unemployment Dynamics Following Exogenous Shocks Chart 6Historically, It Has Taken Some Time For Employment To Return To Pre-Recession Levels Economic life is full of asymmetries. It is easier to go bankrupt than to start a new business. It is also easier to lose a job than to find a new one. Once the links between companies and workers are severed, it can be difficult to restore them. This is partly because it is time-consuming and costly to match available workers with open positions. It is also because there are feedback loops at work: If someone is unemployed and not earning an income, they have less money to spend. If people are not spending much, there is less incentive for firms to hire new workers. In the United States, it took more than six years for the level of employment to return to its January 2008 peak. Even during the fairly mild 2001 downturn, employment did not return to pre-recession levels until February 2005 (Chart 6). Given the recent steep drop in output, it is likely that the unemployment rate will eclipse 10% in the US and most other economies during the coming months. Does this mean that it will take many years for the labor market to heal? Not necessarily. So far, most of the workers who have lost their jobs have been furloughed rather than permanently dismissed. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 86% of the roughly 1.2 million US workers who lost their jobs in March were laid off temporarily (Chart 7). As a share of all unemployed, the number of workers on temporary layoff doubled in March to the highest level on record (Chart 8). Chart 7US Job Losses: Furlough Or Permanent Dismissal? Chart 8US Temporary Job Losses Have Skyrocketed The Role Of Stimulus Of course, it is possible that temporary layoffs will turn into permanent ones. This is where governments need to step in. Nothing can be done about the near-term decline in economic activity. That is the price which needs to be paid to keep the virus under control. However, transfers of income from governments to struggling households and firms can alleviate a lot of needless hardship, while making sure there is enough pent-up demand around for when businesses reopen their doors. We have discussed at length the various monetary and fiscal measures that have been introduced to combat the crisis.3 We will not get into the nitty-gritty of that discussion now, other than to note that the sizes of the various rescue packages have generally been in the ballpark of what is needed. And if it turns out that more help is necessary, it will be forthcoming. Chart 9 shows that there is widespread bipartisan support for further stimulus among US voters of all ages and backgrounds. Chart 9US: Support For Further Stimulus Is Widespread The WWII Comparison In some economic respects, the pandemic may end up resembling World War II. Just like today, the volume of nonessential goods and services was greatly curtailed during the war in order to make room for essential production (Chart 10). Instead of an exponential increase in facemasks and test kits, there was an exponential increase in the production of military equipment (Chart 11). Chart 10WW2 Versus World War V Chart 11Now Let's Do The Same For Test Kits And Ventilators Similar to today, the US government ran massive budget deficits to finance the war effort. The ratio of federal debt-to-GDP rose from 45% in 1942 to more than 100% by the end of 1945. Today there is widespread fear that returning workers will find themselves out of a job. Back then, people worried that returning soldiers would be unable to secure work, leading to a second Great Depression. Future Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson warned that the US faced the “greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation” unless wartime controls were extended. Gunnar Myrdal, another future Nobel laureate, predicted an “epidemic of violence” stemming from mass unemployment. Looking back, while the unemployment rate did rise briefly after the war, it quickly fell back, as the pent-up demand from years of frugality and a slew of war-time inventions ushered in two decades of unprecedented growth. Policy also did its part. Even though government spending fell by 75% in real terms between 1944 and 1947, the GI Bill, which provided free education, low-cost mortgages, and unemployment benefits to returning soldiers, cushioned the blow. The Marshall Plan also helped rebuild post-war Europe, boosting US exports in the process. We are not predicting that the pandemic will usher in a period of unparalleled prosperity. Nevertheless, just like the bleak forecasts following WWII proved to be unfounded, today’s forecasts of prolonged mass unemployment will likely not materialize. Gauging The Fair Value Of Equities To what extent has the recession reduced the fair value of corporate equities? Let us try to answer this question analytically. Consider a baseline where earnings grow by 2% per year, the risk-free rate is 2%, and the equity risk premium is 5%. Now suppose that the recession temporarily reduces corporate profits by 60% this year, 40% next year, and 20% the year after next relative to the aforementioned baseline, with earnings returning to trend beyond then. Chart 12 shows that such a recessionary shock would reduce the present value of earnings by 5.4%. Now let’s consider a more ominous scenario where corporate profits fall by 60% this year, 40% next year, 20% the year after that, and then remain 10% lower relative to the baseline forever. In that case, the present value of future earnings would fall by 14.1%. One might notice that even in this ominous scenario, the present value of future earnings falls less than one might have assumed. And this is before we take into account any possible mitigating effects from a drop in the risk-free rate. For example, suppose that the risk-free rate declines by one percentage point, which is roughly how much both the US 30-year Treasury yield and our 5-year/5-year forward terminal rate proxy have fallen since the start of the year (Chart 13). In that case, the present value of earnings would increase by 7.3% even if profits followed the ominous path described above.   Chart 12What Happens To Earnings During A Recessionary Shock? Chart 13Long-Term Rates Have Dropped This Year Of course, in practice, stocks tend to fall a lot more during recessions than you would expect based on the sort of fair value calculations described above. This is because the equity risk premium, which we have kept constant in our examples, usually rises in periods of economic turmoil. A higher risk premium increases the discount rate applied to future earnings, leading to lower stock prices. The equity risk premium is mean reverting. This explains why the prospective return to equities is usually highest during recessions and lowest following long economic booms. The equity risk premium is quite high at present, which warrants overweighting equities relative to bonds over a 12-month horizon (Chart 14). That said, the high equity risk premium mainly reflects exceptionally low bond yields. In absolute terms, stocks are not especially cheap, particularly in the US, where the S&P 500 trades at 17.3-forward earnings (Chart 15). That is actually above the P/E ratio of 15.1 that the S&P 500 reached in October 2007 at the peak of the bull market before the start of the Global Financial Crisis. Chart 14The Equity Risk Premium Is Quite High, Especially Outside The US Chart 15US Stocks Are Not Particularly Cheap In Absolute Terms     Moreover, today’s forward P/E ratio is based on stale earnings estimates which will come down over the coming weeks. The bottom-up consensus calls for S&P 500 companies to earn $153 per share this year. Our US equity strategists expect something closer to $100. We noted earlier this month that we would be aggressive buyers of stocks if the S&P 500 fell below 2250, but would turn neutral if the S&P 500 rose above 2750. The index briefly fell below 2250 on March 23, only to surge to 2789 as of the close of trading today. As such, we are downgrading our tactical 3-month view on global equities back to neutral. We are also trimming our tactical 3-month recommendation on the more cyclical currencies and stock markets such as those in Europe and EM. For now, we are maintaining our overweight stance on global stocks over a 12-month horizon, but will consider curbing that too if the S&P 500 rises above 3000 without a corresponding improvement in the news flow. Our full slate of views is shown in the matrix at the end of this report. Going forward, we will use this matrix as the primary tool for communicating our market views, reserving trade recommendations only for special situations that are not well covered by the views expressed in the matrix. To enhance accountability, we will start tracking all the positions in the matrix versus an appropriate market benchmark.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com APPENDIX 1: Testing Versus Mass Quarantines (I) In a series of blog posts, Paul Romer presented a model that simulates and visualizes the effects of various policies aimed at containing the spread of Covid-19. At its core, similar to models used by epidemiologists, Romer’s model shows that without any intervention, a vast majority of populations will end up becoming infected. His simulations suggest that the policy of isolation based on random testing can be as effective in containing the virus as mass indiscriminate isolation. However, the economic and social costs of the latter are much higher than they are for the former. In Romer’s simulations, the policy of test-based isolation keeps the cumulative fraction of the population that is infected at below 20%. This policy relies on frequent testing where 7% of the population is randomly tested every day, equivalent to testing everyone roughly once every two weeks. Those who test positive are isolated. It is further assumed that these tests are imperfect: they yield 20% false negatives and 1% false positives. To achieve a similar profile of virus propagation without tests, Romer finds that a random isolation policy would require an average isolation rate in the population of about 50%. Appendix Chart 1 provides a graphical comparison of the intensity of the quarantining that is required under the two policy simulations. It shows that an isolation policy relying on tests results in much less disruption to normal patterns of social interactions.   Appendix Chart 1 APPENDIX 1: Testing Versus Mass Quarantines (II) The following two animations visualize the differences between the two policies: The blue inverted triangles show those who are vulnerable to catching the virus; the red circles signify those who are infectious; the purple squares mark those who were previously infectious but have now recovered and can neither catch nor transmit the virus; and the hollow orange box illustrates isolation. Isolating Based On Test Results .iframe-container{ position: relative; width 100%; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; } .iframe-container iframe{ position: absolute; top:0; left:0; width:100%; height: 100%; }   Isolating At Random .iframe-container{ position: relative; width 100%; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; } .iframe-container iframe{ position: absolute; top:0; left:0; width:100%; height: 100%; }   Source: Paul Romer, “Simulating Covid-19: Part 2,” March 24, 2020. For more details about the models and simulations as well as sensitivity analysis, please visit: https://paulromer.net/. Footnotes 1  “Evaluating The Initial Impact Of Covid-19 Containment Measures On Economic Activity,” OECD, 2020. 2 Paul Romer, “Simulating Covid-19: Part 2,” March 24, 2020. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy, “Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V,” dated March 27, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

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

Dear clients, Owing to the observance of Easter holidays our regular publication schedule resumes with our Weekly Report on Tuesday, April 14th, 2020. Kind Regards, Anastasios Avgeriou While we have no real visibility on EPS, our sense is that we will not fall further than what has already been discounted in the broad equity market (please see the March 30, 2020 Weekly Report for more details). At the same time, analysts are scrambling to cut estimates the world over. Not only SPX net earnings revisions (NER) are at the lowest point since the GFC, but so is the emerging markets NER ratio. The Eurozone and Japan are following close behind and have recently plunged near the GFC lows (see chart). Once again the speed of this downward adjustment suggests that a lot of bad news is already priced in now depressed NER. Such pessimism in the sell-side community has historically flagged periods of climactic selling, and with NER being nearly on a par with GFC levels, it is likely that the market has already printed the lows for the current recession. Bottom Line: We continue to recommend investors with higher risk tolerance and a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon deploy capital in the broad equity market.