Developed Countries

Special Report

Highlights The potential range of book value outcomes for large banks is enormous, … : Total credit losses will be a function of the virus’ persistence, the intensity and duration of the social distancing actions taken to combat it, and the efficacy of monetary and fiscal policy measures meant to mitigate the economic pain. … making it almost impossible to assess their equity valuations: With the uncertainty around each of the three independent variables, estimating default rates and recovery rates is a guessing game. This is the most sudden recession on record, … : Nearly 10 million people have filed initial jobless claims in the last two weeks, more than the average over the first 26 weeks of the last seven recessions. … but the biggest banks have entered it on more stable footing than they typically would, and they have a few things going for them: The biggest banks are nowhere near as extended as they typically are after expansions, with unusually conservative asset portfolios and a large stockpile of equity capital. Feature “It depends” is always the answer to quite a few questions in economics, but right now, it’s the answer to just about all of them. Global economic activity is hostage to the COVID-19 outbreak, and the social distancing measures that have been implemented in an attempt to impede its progress. No one can say for sure how long those measures will have to remain in place, though their impact has been starkly apparent on the broad swath of businesses that they have rendered unviable. Non-essential retailers, pro sports leagues, movie theaters, concert venues, gyms, barbers, nail salons, bars and restaurants have had their revenue streams cut off entirely. Nearly all of them have some fixed costs: rent if they don’t own their space; maintenance, mortgage payments and property taxes if they do. Table 1A Half-Year Of Jobless Claims In Two Weeks Monthly rent and mortgage obligations pose a thorny issue for the banking system, because they could lead to a surge of defaults among retailers and their landlords. The unprecedentedly rapid rise in unemployment (Table 1) could trigger a tsunami of home mortgage, credit card and auto loan delinquencies. Congress, the Fed, and various executive-branch departments and agencies are doing their best to protect the individuals and businesses sucked into the vortex, but the ultimate success of their efforts is uncertain. That uncertainty makes it impossible to project the SIFI banks’ credit losses within a reasonably useful confidence interval. To take an extreme example, what if the collateral securing auto loans were reduced to its scrap value because consumers developed an aversion to previously-owned vehicles? Getting less far-fetched, what if all used cars had to be marked down by 20 or 30% to entice drivers to swallow their discomfort, and the value of soon-to-be-vacant homes and apartments faced similar haircuts? Neither is our base-case scenario, but the fact that the markdown scenario is at least plausible illustrates the difficulty of estimating credit losses, and the challenge of coming up with decent estimates of SIFI banks’ earnings and capital adequacy. For the time being, we cannot say if the SIFI banks are better bought or sold at their current prices because we don’t know how 1Q loan-loss provisions will affect their March 31st book value, or what June 30th book might be. Our thinking has evolved in the week since we published Part 1 of this Special Report on the biggest US banks’ vulnerability. Initially, 50 years of Wells Fargo’s financials led us to believe that the SIFI bank de-rating over the last month and a half was excessive, and we concluded that buying SIFI banks at or below their December 31st tangible book value provided investors with a significant margin of safety. The chance to buy at or below tangible book would be a gift even in a bad recession, but the current episode threatens to go well beyond bad. Though we still lean to buying the SIFIs rather than selling them, we now recommend that investors watch and wait before committing, as they should with risk assets more generally. We hold to that bias because our review of system-wide data revealed ample instances of how the largest banks have entered this recession in better shape than normal. We also take heart from the idea that the Fed and elected officials will vigorously pursue policies that directly and indirectly benefit the banks. The banking system is considerably more solid than it was ahead of the 2007-8 crisis. It’s not immune to the shocks that are roiling the economy, but it will not be a driver of them. A Lack Of Banking Excesses Back in 2007, the last time that a recession/financial crisis was taking aim at the US, a bank-examiner-turned-analyst told us that, “Banks create value on the liability side of the balance sheet [via deposits], and destroy it on the asset side.” At the time, the destruction was centered on subprime mortgages and the securities they spawned, but the story plays itself out in every cycle. Bad loans are made in good times, as bankers let their guard down after an extended period of low defaults and market share takes precedence over lending standards. Banks exercised more restraint over the last 10-plus years than they have in any prior postwar expansion. 11 years of zero- and negative-interest-rate policy have promoted plenty of credit excesses, as many investors have gone far afield in search of yield. Bond covenants have been shredded, and corporate leverage has duly risen. Yet banks have largely stayed out of the fray. Bank lending grew at a markedly slower rate between July 2009 and February 2020 than it has in any other postwar expansion1 (Chart 1, top panel). Chart 1An Especially Restrained Expansion Total loan growth slid all the way to 3.8% annualized versus 9.7% in prior postwar expansions. While real estate lending slowed the most, following the frenzy that precipitated the 2007-8 crisis (Chart 1, bottom panel), C&I (Chart 1, second panel) and consumer lending (Chart 1, third panel) also fell well short of their postwar expansion pace, and only consumer lending failed to set a new postwar expansion low (Table 2). From the examiner-analyst’s perspective, banks behaved less self-destructively in the last ten-plus years than they have in any other postwar expansion. Regulatory efforts to curb banking excesses really did get some traction. Table 2Core Bank Lending Growth During Expansions Setting An Uncharacteristically Good Example Historically, the largest banks are at the center of the excesses that make the banking system vulnerable and help set the stage for crises. It wasn’t a community banker, after all, who smugly declared that countries don’t go bust after having plunged headfirst into lending to shaky Latin American governments. It has been the biggest players who have hatched dubious financial innovations and scaled them to the extremes that trigger systemic rumbles. Since the 2007-8 crisis, however, the biggest banks have demonstrated uncommon restraint. As we noted in Part 1, loan-to-deposit ratios around 100% and above are a sign of instability because they have to be funded with capital flows that are here today but gone tomorrow. Lower loan-to-deposit ratios hold down profits, but they buffer banks’ exposure to the business cycle, provided that deposit funding isn’t diverted to uses that are riskier than straightforward loans. The FDIC and the Fed maintain data series that offer insight into different-sized banks’ use of their lending capacity. The FDIC’s Quarterly Banking Profile, published since the mid-‘90s, breaks out total system loan-to-deposit ratios into categories based on the size of individual banks’ assets. Using its data, we were able to compare the largest banks’ activity with all other FDIC-insured banks’ activity since 1997. The comparison showed that the largest banks performed an about-face after the subprime crisis, going from operating with uniformly higher loan-to-deposit ratios than all other banks to operating with uniformly – and significantly – lower loan-to-deposit ratios (Chart 2). Chart 2The Biggest Banks Are Using Less Of Their Lending Capacity ... The Fed’s commercial bank balance sheet data covering large and small banks extend back another decade. The data do not align perfectly with the FDIC’s, as the Fed’s large-bank subset (the top 25 banks by assets) has been broader than the FDIC’s since 2016 (top 9 or 10 banks) and was narrower in prior years (the FDIC’s top subset included 66 to 119 banks). The Fed’s data do not show large banks making fuller use of their deposit capacity in the ‘90s and most of last decade, but they echo the post-2007-8 drop-off in the FDIC data (Chart 3). The biggest banks have operated with less risk under the Basel 3/Dodd-Frank/Volcker Rule regime, allocating less of their capacity to loans, and considerably more to Treasuries, agencies and cash (Chart 4). Chart 3... No Matter How They're Defined ... Chart 4... And They're Directing It To Safer, More Liquid Assets Banks Are Better Capitalized Than They Used To Be The overall banking system is operating with considerably less leverage than it did in the ‘80s or ‘90s, as equity capital now accounts for 12% of total assets (Chart 5). Wells Fargo’s leverage history as shown in Part 1 suggests that banks were even more thinly capitalized in the ‘70s. An increased proportion of equity capital makes a bank more resilient to loan losses and other operational stumbles. Critically for the stability of the system, the SIFI banks are forced to maintain additional capital buffers. The combination of increased equity capital and increased holdings of liquid assets with little to no credit risk like Treasury and agency securities has made all of the largest banks safer. Chart 5Increased Equity Financing Has Made Banks More Resilient Some Fears Seem Overblown We reiterate from Part 1 that larger banks do not borrow short to lend long, and have not for a long time. According to the latest Quarterly Banking Profile, barely a sixth of the 4,400 banks with assets of less than $1 billion report having any derivatives exposure. A considerable majority of community banks must therefore take their asset and liability maturity profiles as given, leaving them exposed to the vagaries of shifts in the yield curve. No management team at a decently-sized publicly traded bank would dare to run anything more than a very narrow mismatch in asset and liability duration, however, as evidenced by the gargantuan interest-rate swaps market. Bank stocks may trade with 10-year Treasury yields, but the slope of the curve has very little bearing on bank earnings.2 During recessions, banks usually encounter more customers trying to park money than businesses trying to borrow it.  Unused loan commitments have provoked much agita among investors in recent weeks. A floundering company, desperately trying to stay afloat, may well draw down all of its available credit lines. Line drawdowns could force banks to make good on loan commitments made in better times that now have little prospect of repayment. While they do not appear to have been a significant issue in the ’90-’91 or 2001 recessions, lines were drawn down sharply in 2007-8 (Chart 6). Chart 6Much Ado About Nothing? The positive news for banks is that their exposure to untapped commitments is considerably smaller than it was heading into the last recession. They may also be less likely to be drawn, thanks to multiple Fed initiatives aimed at ensuring the availability of credit, like its ambitious plan to backstop investment-grade corporate borrowers, and the CARES Act’s expansion of Small Business Administration funding and provision of loans and loan guarantees for ailing companies in industries related to national security. There are going to be considerably more strapped borrowers, but they will have more non-bank avenues to obtain funding than they have had in prior recessions. Banks know that line demand may spike soon after the business cycle peaks; they reserve for unused commitments and will not be caught entirely unawares. Finally, not all of the unused commitments are to suffering C&I borrowers that investors most fear; Wells Fargo’s commitment history suggests that the largest share of the outstanding commitments are to individual credit card borrowers. Despite rising distress, lending has increased at a fairly modest rate during recessions, as households and businesses broadly shrink from risk, while deposits have grown at a faster rate, as the safety of FDIC-insured accounts gains appeal (Table 3). We do not expect that increased consumption of credit line capacity will materially alter the banking system’s credit exposures. Table 3Core Bank Lending And Deposit Growth During Recessions Investment Implications The banking system, anchored by the SIFI banks, is in considerably better shape now than it was in 2007, and does not pose an active threat to the financial system this time around. The banking system is not only better capitalized than it has been in the past, but large banks have invested far more conservatively. We cannot assess how expensive SIFI stocks are without having a better handle on potential loan losses, however, and we need to get a sense at how successful the Fed’s and Congress’ interventions to stem the building economic distress will be. We hope for the best, but the last-mile issues are complicated, and we expect that the mitigation efforts will have to work out some kinks before they begin to get traction. Don't worry about the banks, but give it some time before buying them. Congress and the Fed are trying to perform challenging new routines, and it's unlikely they'll stick the landing on their first try. Table 4Comfortably In The Money Our no-rush-to-buy take on the broad market applies to the SIFI banks, as well. We have high conviction that Congress and the administration will do whatever it takes to shore up the most vulnerable parts of the economy as they reveal themselves, and the Fed has already moved to a war footing. Stocks can go lower as they climb the learning curve, and may have to do so to signal the need for further intervention. We would not be concerned in the slightest if the SIFI banks were to cut or suspend their dividends. Husbanding cash is a good idea in times of uncertainty, and a couple of quarters without dividends is far preferable to shareholders than a dilutive secondary equity offering or rights issue. To the extent that it may leave elected officials more favorably disposed to the banking sector, it would be a plus. One may as well stay on the good side of legislators doling out goodies. Finally, our newly increased sense of caution does not extend to the put-writing idea we detailed two weeks ago. If implied volatility in the SIFI banks’ stocks returns to the triple-digit level, investors selling put options would be generously compensated for assuming the inherent risks. Even though the SIFIs have stumbled over the last six sessions, time decay and the steep decline in the VIX have the contracts we highlighted well in the money (Table 4).   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Until the NBER makes the official designation, our working assumption is that the recession began in March. 2 Please see the February 28, 2011 US Investment Strategy Special Report, "Banks And The Yield Curve," available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Global shortages of medical equipment – including medicines – are frontloaded until emergency production kicks in. As the crisis abates, political recriminations between the US and China will surge. The US will seek to minimize medical supply exposure to China going forward, a boon for India and Mexico. China has escaped the COVID-19 crisis with minimal impact on food supply. Pork prices are surging due to African Swine Flu, but meat is a luxury. Still, the “Misery Index” is spiking and this will increase social instability. Food insecurity, inflation, and large current account deficits suggest that emerging market currencies will remain under pressure. Turkey and South Africa stand to suffer while we remain overweight Malaysia. Feature Chart 1Collapse In Economic Activity With a third of the world population under some form of lockdown, general activity in the world’s manufacturing powerhouses has collapsed (Chart 1). The breakdown is a double whammy on market fundamentals. On the supply side, government-mandated containment efforts force workers in non-essential services to stay home while, on the demand side, households confined to their homes are unable to spend. Acute demand for medical supplies is causing shortages, while supply disruptions threaten states that lack food security. While global monetary and fiscal stimulus will soften the blow (Chart 2), the economic shock is estimated to be a 2% contraction in real GDP for every month of strict isolation. If measures are extended beyond April, markets will sell and new stimulus will be applied. Already the US Congress is negotiating the $1-$2 trillion infrastructure package that we discussed in our March 4 report, and cash handouts will be ongoing. When the dust settles the political fallout will be massive. Authoritarian states like China and especially Iran will face greater challenges maintaining domestic stability. Democracies like Italy and the US, which lead the COVID-19 case count, are the most likely to experience a change in leadership (Chart 3). Initially the ruling parties of the democracies are receiving a bump in opinion polling, but this will fade as households will be worse off and will likely vent their grievances at the ballot box. Until a vaccine or treatment is discovered, medical equipment and social distancing are the only weapons against the pandemic. National production is (rightly) being redirected from clothing and cars to masks and ventilators to meet the spike in demand. Will the supply shock cause shortages in food and medicine – essential goods for humankind? In this report we address the impact of COVID-19 on global supply security and assess the market implications. Medical Equipment Shortages Will Spur Protectionism Policymakers are fighting today’s crisis with the tools of the 2008 crisis, but a lasting rebound in financial markets will depend on surmounting the pandemic, which is prerequisite to economic recovery (Table 1). As the US faces the peak of its COVID-19 outbreak, public health officials and doctors are raising the alarm on the shortage of medical supplies. A recent US Conference of Mayors survey reveals that out of the 38% of mayors who say they have received supplies from their state, 84.6% say they are inadequate (Chart 4). Italy serves as a warning: A reported 8% of the COVID-19 cases there are doctors and health professionals, often treating patients without gloves or with compromised protective gear. These workers are irreplaceable and when they succumb the virus cannot be contained. In the US, doctors and nurses are re-using masks and sometimes treating patients behind a mere curtain, highlighting the supply shortage. While the shortages are mainly driven by a surge in demand from both medical institutions and households, they also come from the supply side, particularly China. Factory closures and transportation disruptions in China earlier this year, coupled with Beijing’s government-mandated export curbs, reduced Chinese exports, a major source of US and global supplies (Chart 5). Other countries have imposed restrictions on exports of products used in combating the spread of COVID-19. Following export restrictions by the French, German, and Czech governments in early March, the European Commission intervened on March 15 to ensure intra-EU trade. It also restricted exports of protective medical gear outside of the EU. At least 54 nations have imposed new export restrictions on medical supplies since the beginning of the year.1 Both European and Chinese measures will reduce supplies in the US, the top destination for most of these halted exports (Chart 6). Thus it is no wonder that the Trump administration has rushed to cut import duties and boost domestic production. The administration has released strategic stockpiles and cut tariffs on Chinese medical equipment used to treat COVID-19. With the whole nation mobilized, supply kinks should improve greatly in April. After a debacle in rolling out test kits (Chart 7), the US is rapidly increasing its testing capabilities to manage the crisis, with over a million tests completed as of the end of March (Chart 8). Meanwhile a coalition of companies is taking shape to make face masks. The president has invoked the defense production act to force companies to make ventilators. However, with the pandemic peaking in the US, the hardest-hit regions will continue experiencing shortages in the near term. Shortages are prompting public outcry against the US government for its failure to anticipate and redress supply chain vulnerabilities that were well known and warned against. A report in The New York Times tells how Mike Bowen, owner of Texas-based mask-maker Prestige Ameritech, has advised the past three presidents about the danger in the fact that the US imports 95% of its surgical masks. “Aside from sitting in front of the White House and lighting myself on fire, I feel like I’ve done everything I can,” he said. He is currently inundated with emergency orders from US hospitals. The same report tells of a company called Strong Manufacturers in North Carolina that had to cut production of masks because it depends on raw materials from Wuhan, China, where the virus originated.2 The Trump administration will suffer the initial public uproar, but the US government will also seek to reduce import dependency going forward, and it will likely deflect some of the blame by focusing on the supply risks posed by China. Beijing, for its part, is launching a propaganda campaign against the US to distract from its own failures at home (some officials have even blamed the US for the virus). Meanwhile it is cranking up production and shipping medical supplies to crisis hit areas like Italy to try to repair its global image after having given rise to the virus. In addition, the city of Shenzhen is sending 1.2 million N95 masks to the US on the New England Patriots’ team plane. Even Russia is sending small donations. But these moves work to propagandistic efforts in these countries and will ultimately shame the Americans into taking measures to improve self-sufficiency. Bottom Line: The most important supply shortage amid the global pandemic is that of medical equipment. While these shortages will abate sooner rather than later, the supply chain vulnerabilities they have exposed will trigger new policies of supply redundancy and import substitution. The US in particular will seek to reduce dependency on China. That COVID-19 is aggravating rather than reducing tensions between these states, despite China’s role as a key supplier in a time of need, highlights the secular nature of their rising tensions. The US-China Drug War Shortages of pharmaceuticals are also occurring, despite the fact that the primary pandemic response is necessarily “non-pharmaceutical” (e.g. social distancing). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the first COVID-19 related drug shortage in the US on February 27. While the specific drug was not disclosed, the announcement notes that “the shortage is due to an issue with manufacturing of an active pharmaceutical ingredient used in the drug.”3 The FDA is monitoring 20 other (non-critical) drugs potentially at risk of shortages because the sole source is China. The global spread of the pandemic will increase these shortages. On March 3 India announced export restrictions on 26 drugs, including paracetamol and several antibiotics, due to supply disruptions caused by the Chinese shutdown. While Chinese economic activity has since picked up, India is now among the string of countries under a nationwide lockdown. Similar measures enforced across Europe will also hamper the production and transportation of these goods. The implication is that even if Chinese drugs return to market, supplies further down the chain and from alternative suppliers will take a hit. The risk that this will evolve into a drug shortage depends on the intensity of the outbreak. Drug companies generally hold 3-6 months’ worth of inventories. Consequently, while inventories are likely to draw as supplies are disrupted, consumers may not experience an outright shortage immediately. In the US, as with equipment and protective gear, the government’s strategic stockpile will buffer against shortfalls in supplies of critical drugs. COVID-19 is aggravating rather than reducing US-China tensions. Nevertheless the supply chain is getting caught up in the larger US-China strategic conflict. Even before the pandemic, the US-China trade war brought attention to the US’s vulnerabilities to China’s drug exports. This dispute is not limited to illicit drugs, as with China’s production of the opioid fentanyl, but also extends to mainstream medicines, as highlighted in the selection of public statements shown in Table 2. How much does the US rely on China for medicine? According to FDA data, just over half of manufacturing facilities producing regulated drugs in finished dosage form for the US market are located abroad, with China’s share at 7% (Chart 9).4 The figures are higher for manufacturing facilities producing active pharmaceutical ingredients, though still not alarming – 72% of the facilities are located abroad, with 13% in China. Of course, high-level data understate China’s influence. The complex nature of global drug supply chains means that the source of finished dosage forms masks dependencies and dominance higher up the supply chain (Figure 1). For instance, active pharmaceutical ingredients produced in Chinese facilities are used as intermediate goods by finished dosage facilities in India as well as China. The FDA reports that Indian finished dosage facilities rely on China for three-quarters of the active ingredients in their generic drug formulations, which are then exported to the US and the rest of the world. Any supply disruption in China – or any other major drug producer – will lead to shortages further down the supply chain. Chinese influence becomes more apparent when the sample is restricted to generic prescription drugs. These are especially relevant because nearly 70% of Americans are on at least one prescription drug, of which more than 90% are dispensed in the generic form. In this case, 87% of ingredient manufacturers and 60% of finished dosage manufacturers are located outside the US, with 17% of ingredient facilities and 8% of dosage facilities in China (Chart 10). Of all the facilities that manufacture active ingredients that are listed on the World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines List – a compilation of drugs that are considered critical to the health system – 71% are located aboard with 15% located in China (Chart 11). Moreover, manufacturers are relatively inflexible when adapting to market conditions and shortages. Drug manufacturing facilities generally operate at above 80% of their capacity and are thus left with little immediate capacity to ramp up production in reaction to shortages elsewhere. In addition, manufacturers face challenges in changing ingredient suppliers – there is no centralized source of information on them, and additional FDA approvals are required. The US will look to reduce its dependency on China for its drug supplies regardless of 2020 election outcome. China also has overwhelming dominance in specific categories. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that China makes up 97% of the US antibiotics market.5 Other common drugs that are highly dependent on China for supplies include ibuprofen, acetaminophen, hydrocortisone, penicillin, and heparin (Chart 12). Taking it all together, US vulnerability can be overstated. Consider the following: Of the 370 drugs on the Essential Medicines List that are marketed in the US, only three are produced solely in China. None of these three are used to treat top ten causes of death in the United States. Import substitution is uneconomical. Foreign companies, especially Chinese companies, are attractive due to their lower costs and lax regulations. While China’s influence extends higher up the supply chain, this is true for US markets as well as other consumer markets. While China can cut off the US from the finished dosages it supplies, it cannot do the same for the ingredients that are used by facilities in other countries and eventually make their way to the US in finished dosage form. Americans are demanding that drug prices be reduced and an obvious solution is looser controls on imports. The recent activation of the Defense Production Act shows that the US can take action to boost domestic production in emergencies. Nevertheless, China is growing conspicuous to the American public due to general trade tensions and COVID-19. As it moves up the value chain, it also threatens increasing competition for the US and its allies. Hence the US government will have a strategic reason to cap China’s influence that is also supported by corporate interests and popular opinion. This will lead to tense trade negotiations with China and meanwhile the US will seek alternative suppliers. China will not want to lose market share or leverage over the United States, so it may offer trade concessions at some point to keep the US engaged. Ultimately, however, strategic tensions will catalyze US policy moves to reduce the cost differential with China and promote its rivals. Pressure on China over its currency, regulatory standards, and scientific-technological acquisition will continue regardless of which party wins the White House in 2020. The Democrats would increase focus on China’s transparency and adherence to international standards, including labor and environmental standards. Both Republicans and Democrats will try to boost trade with allies. The key beneficiaries will be India, Southeast Asia, and the Americas. Taiwan’s importance will grow as a middle-man, but so will its vulnerability to strategic tensions. Bottom Line: The US and the rest of the world are suffering shortfalls of equipment necessary to combat COVID-19. There is also a risk of drug shortages stemming from supply disruptions and emergency protectionist policies. These shortages look to be manageable, but they have exposed national vulnerabilities that will be reduced in future via interventionist trade policies. While the US and Europe will ultimately manage the outbreak, the political fallout will be immense. The US will look to reduce its dependency on China. This will increase investment in non-China producers of active pharmaceutical ingredients, such as India and Mexico. The US tactics against China will vary according to the election result, but the strategic direction of diversifying away from China is clear and will have popular impetus in the wake of COVID-19. Food Security In addition to the challenges posed by COVID-19 on medical supplies, food – another essential good – also faces risk of shortages. China is a case in point. Food prices there were on the rise well before the COVID-19 outbreak, averaging 17.3% in the final quarter of 2019. However inflation was limited to pork and its substitutes – beef, lamb and poultry – and reflected a reduction in pork supplies on the back of the African Swine Flu outbreak. While year-on-year increases in the prices of pork and beef averaged 102.8% and 21.0%, respectively, grain, fresh vegetable, and fresh fruit prices averaged 0.6%, 1.5%, and -5.0% in Q42019 (Chart 13). Chart 13Chinese Inflation Has (Thus far) Been Contained To Pork Chart 14China's Misery Index Is Spiking - A Political Liability However China’s COVID-19 containment measures had a more broad-based impact on food supplies, threatening to push up China’s Misery Index (Chart 14). Travel restrictions, roadblocks, quarantined farm laborers, and risk-averse truck drivers introduced challenges not only in ensuring supplies were delivered to consumers, but also to daily farm activity and planting. The absence of farm inputs needed for planting such as seeds and fertilizer, and animal feed for livestock, was especially damaging in regions hardest hit by the pandemic. Livestock farmers already struggling with swine flu-related reductions in herd sizes were forced to prematurely cull starving animals, cutting the stock of chicken and hogs. Now as the country transitions out of its COVID-19 containment phase and moves toward normalizing activity (Chart 15), food security is top of the mind. Authorities are emphasizing the need to ensure sufficient food supplies and adopt policies to encourage production.6 This is especially important for crops due to be planted in the spring. Delayed or reduced plantings would weight on the quality and quantity of the crops, pushing prices up. With food estimated to account for 19.9% of China’s CPI basket – 12.8% of which goes towards pork (Chart 16) – a prolonged food shortage, or a full-blown food crisis, would be extremely damaging to Chinese families and their pocketbooks. However, apart from soybeans and to a lesser extent livestock, China’s inventories are well stocked (Chart 17) and are significantly higher than levels amid the 2006-2008 and 2010-2012 food crises. Inventories have been built up specifically to provide ammunition precisely in times of crisis. Corn and rice stocks are capable of covering consumption for nearly three quarters of a year, and wheat stocks exceeding a year’s worth of consumption. Thus, while not completely immune, China today is better able to weather a supply shock. Moreover, with the exception of soybeans, China is not overly dependent on imports for agricultural supplies (Chart 18).   As the COVID-19 epicenter shifts to the US and Europe, farmers there are beginning to face the same challenges. Reports of delays in the arrival of shipments of inputs such as fertilizer and seeds have prompted American farmers to prepare for the worst and order these goods ahead of time. While these proactive measures will help reduce risks to supply, farmers in Europe and parts of the US who typically rely on migrant laborers will need to search for alternative laborers as the planting season nears. Just last week France’s agriculture minister asked hairdressers, waiters, florists, and others that find themselves unemployed to take up work in farms to ensure food security. As countries become increasingly aware of the risks to food supplies, some have already introduced protectionist measures, especially in the former Soviet Union: The Russian agriculture ministry proposed setting up a quota for Russian grain exports and has already announced that it is suspending exports of processed grains from March 20 for 10 days. Kazakhstan suspended exports of several agricultural goods including wheat flour and sugar until at least April 15. On March 27, Ukraine’s economy ministry announced that it was monitoring wheat export and would take measures necessary to ensure domestic supplies are adequate. Vietnam temporarily suspended rice contracts until March 28 as it checked if it had sufficient domestic supplies. The challenge is that, unlike China, inventories in the rest of the world are not any higher than during the previous food crisis and do not provide much of a buffer against supply shortfalls (Chart 19). Higher food prices would be especially painful to lower income countries where food makes up a larger share of household spending (Chart 20). In addition to using their strategic food stockpiles, governments will attempt to mitigate the impact of higher food prices by implementing a slew of policies: Trade policies: Producing countries will want to protect domestic supplies by restricting exports – either through complete bans or export quotas. Importing countries will attempt to reduce the burden of higher prices on consumers by cutting tariffs on the affected goods. Consumer-oriented policies: Importing countries will provide direct support to consumers in the form of food subsidies, social safety nets, tax reductions, and price controls. Producer-oriented policies: Governments will provide support to farmers to encourage greater production using measures such as input subsidies, producer price support, or tax exemptions on goods used in production. While these policies will help alleviate the pressure on consumers, they also result in greater government expenditures and lower revenues. Thus, subsidizing the import bill of a food price shock can weigh on public finances, debt levels, and FX reserves. Currencies already facing pressure due to the recessionary environment, such as Turkey, South Africa and Chile will come under even greater downward pressure. Food inventories ex-China are insufficient to protect against supply shortages. Bottom Line: COVID-19’s logistical disruptions are challenging farm output. This is especially true when transporting goods and individuals across borders rather than within countries. This will be especially challenging for food importing countries, as some producers have already started erecting protectionist measures and this will result in an added burden on government budgets that are already extended in efforts to contain the economic repercussions of the pandemic. Investment Implications Chart 21Ag Prices Inversely Correlated With USD China will continue trying to maximize its market share and move up the value chain in drug production. At the same time, the US is likely to diversify away from China and try to cap China’s market share. This will result in tense trade negotiations regardless of the outcome of the US election. The COVID-19 experience with medical shortages and newfound public awareness of potential medical supply chain vulnerabilities means that another round of the trade war is likely. Stay long USD-CNY. Regarding agriculture, demand for agricultural commodities is relatively inelastic. This inelasticity should prevent a complete collapse in prices even amid a weak demand environment. Thus given the risk on supplies, prices face upward pressure. However, not all crops are facing these same market dynamics. While wheat and rice prices have started to move in line with the dynamics described above, soybeans and to a greater extent corn prices have not reacted as such (Chart 21). In the case of soybeans, we expect demand to be relatively muted. China accounts for a third of the world’s soybean consumption. 80% of Chinese soybeans are crushed to produce meal to feed China’s massive pork industry. However, the 21% y/y decline in pork output in 2019 on the back of the African Swine Flu outbreak will weigh on demand and mute upward pressures on supplies. Demand for corn will also likely come in weak. The COVID-19 containment measures and the resulting halt in economic activity reduce demand for gasoline and, as a consequence, reduce demand for corn-based ethanol, which is blended with gasoline. In addition to the above fundamentals, ag prices have been weighed down by a strong USD which makes ex-US exporters relatively better off, incentivizing them to raise exports and increase global supplies. A weaker USD – which we do not see in the near term – would help support ag prices. It is worth noting that if there is broad enforcement of protectionist measures, then producers will not be able to benefit from a stronger dollar. In that case we may witness a breakdown in the relationship between ag prices and the dollar. In light of these supply/demand dynamics, we expect rice and wheat prices to be well supported going forward and to outperform corn and soybeans.   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See "Tackling COVID-19 Together: The Trade Policy Dimension," Global Trade Alert, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, March 23, 2020. 2 See Rachel Abrams et al, "Governments and Companies Race to Make Masks Vital to Virus Fight," The New York Times, March 21, 2020. 3 The announcement also notes that there are other alternatives that can be used by patients. See "Coronavirus (COVID-19) Supply Chain Update," US FDA, February 27, 2020. 4 All regulated drugs include prescription (brand and generic), over the counter, and compounded drugs. 5 Please see Huang, Yanzhong, "The Coronavirus Outbreak Could Disrupt The US Drug Supply," Council on Foreign Relations, March 5, 2020. 6 The central government ordered local authorities to allow animal feed to pass through checkpoints amid the lockdowns. In addition, Beijing has relaxed import restrictions by lifting a ban on US poultry products and announcing that importers could apply for waivers on goods tariffed during the trade war such as pork and soybeans. The lifting of these restrictions also serves to help China meet its phase one trade deal commitments. Please see "Coronavirus hits China’s farms and food supply chain, with further spike in meat prices ahead," South China Morning Post, dated February 21, 2020.

We continue to recommend investors avoid the S&P real estate sector. For investors seeking defensive protection we would recommend hiding in the S&P health care sector instead, as we highlighted in our mid-March report.1 The chart on the right shows a disturbing breakdown in the inverse correlation between the relative share price ratio and the 10-year Treasury yield. While it makes intuitive sense that this fixed income proxy sector (i.e. high dividend yielding) should move in the opposite direction of the competing risk-free yielding asset, at times of tumult this correlation reverts to positive (top panel) as the sector looses its attractiveness thanks to the very illiquid assets that dominate REITs’ holdings. Commercial real estate prices also remain extended and vulnerable to a deflationary shock (bottom panel). Currently there is no real price discovery as no landlord would dare put any properties for sale in this market starved for liquidity. With the exception of distressed sales, we deem that the “mark to model” mantra will make a comeback, eerily reminiscent of the GFC. Bottom Line: Shy away from the S&P real estate sector. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RLST – CCI, AMT, PLD, EQIX, DLR, PSA, SBAC, AVB, EQR, FRT, SPG, WELL, ARE, CBRE, O, BXP, ESS, EXR, DRE, PEAK, HST, MAA, UDR, VTR, WY, AIV, IRM, PEG, VNO, SLG. For more details please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report.     1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Inflection Point” dated March 16, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com